Looking for a Macro lens advice

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Mike Delgado

Mike Delgado

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I have a Z9/Z8 and looking to do some macro photography. I have many lenses but no Macro, flowers, insects, water drops and whatever else catches my eye.
So I seek advice on what to look for. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Let me throw in an older, and somewhat exotic, lense, and my prederred one as it also doubles as a nice landscape lense. It is only MF on Nikon Z cameras and requires a FTZ adapter, kust as a heads up.

The Nikkor 70-180 Micro zoom lense from way back. As far as Micro lenses go, it also kind of reasonably priced, good used samples start at around 500 (€ or $). And as I said, if you can live with the use of an adaptor and MF only, double as a mid-range landscape zoom. Also smaller that it looks, albeit not lightwieght due to all that glass and metal, just slightly larger than the old 105 AF-D Micro and only a little bit heavier. Also has a tripod foot. Did I mention it is a macro ZOOM? :)
 
Member's gallery
When I was shooting a D500, I had the Nikkor 105mm F2.8 Micro VR. That lens was a thing of beauty. I have heard (although not personally used one) the new Z mount 105 Macro is even better. The 105 I had just had "it" for macro.

I currently shoot Canon but that's not what you were asking and it is really hard to compare one brand against another when the systems are so different.

Hope this helps.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
When I was shooting a D500, I had the Nikkor 105mm F2.8 Micro VR. That lens was a thing of beauty. I have heard (although not personally used one) the new Z mount 105 Macro is even better. The 105 I had just had "it" for macro.

I currently shoot Canon but that's not what you were asking and it is really hard to compare one brand against another when the systems are so different.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about the new Macro 105 S line.
 
Member's gallery
hef19898 said:
Let me throw in an older, and somewhat exotic, lense, and my prederred one as it also doubles as a nice landscape lense. It is only MF on Nikon Z cameras and requires a FTZ adapter, kust as a heads up.

The Nikkor 70-180 Micro zoom lense from way back. As far as Micro lenses go, it also kind of reasonably priced, good used samples start at around 500 (€ or $). And as I said, if you can live with the use of an adaptor and MF only, double as a mid-range landscape zoom. Also smaller that it looks, albeit not lightwieght due to all that glass and metal, just slightly larger than the old 105 AF-D Micro and only a little bit heavier. Also has a tripod foot. Did I mention it is a macro ZOOM? :)
Click to expand...
Just wondering about the Nikon 105S. I appreciate the information.
 
Member's gallery
The 105 mm Micro lenses have always been great, I went to the abive mentioned zoom because it replaced two lenses in my bag, both of which were rather, well, utilized if not to say worn down. And from what I read and heard, the latest Z mount incarnation of the 105 Micro is even better. That seems to be a theme so for Z mount glass.

I had the old 105 AF-D before, and if was wonderfull! Also a nice partrait lense and good prime for landscapes and such.

A Z lense has the benefit of being able to use the auto focus stacking of the Z bodies, that would go a long way for great macro shots!
 
Member's gallery
I have more Nikon macro lenses than I care to count. It is not clear if you want a close focusing lens or a true macro lens that can hit 1:1. If it is the former, the 24-120 is a nice option. If the latter, I would recommend the Z-series 105mm. It is on my short list of next purchases and most folks who have shot it say it is better than the old 105VR, which I have and like. Yes, there are some unique lenses like the 70-180 or the 200, but they are old and parts are no longer available.

But the bigger question is if you plan on using a tripod for these shots, or are you only interested in handheld. If the latter, than you might consider the 24-120 or a close-up filter/lens for an existing lens. You are not easily going to get 1:1 handheld with most lenses, as any movement will show up in the image (and that includes your movement or subject movement). So before you get too deep into the macro rabbit hole, decide how deep you want to go and how much equipment you want to buy (e.g. macro rail, ring light, etc.).

Good luck,

--Ken
 
Member's gallery
Replytoken said:
I have more Nikon macro lenses than I care to count. It is not clear if you want a close focusing lens or a true macro lens that can hit 1:1. If it is the former, the 24-120 is a nice option. If the latter, I would recommend the Z-series 105mm. It is on my short list of next purchases and most folks who have shot it say it is better than the old 105VR, which I have and like. Yes, there are some unique lenses like the 70-180 or the 200, but they are old and parts are no longer available.

But the bigger question is if you plan on using a tripod for these shots, or are you only interested in handheld. If the latter, than you might consider the 24-120 or a close-up filter/lens for an existing lens. You are not easily going to get 1:1 handheld with most lenses, as any movement will show up in the image (and that includes your movement or subject movement). So before you get too deep into the macro rabbit hole, decide how deep you want to go and how much equipment you want to buy (e.g. macro rail, ring light, etc.).

Good luck,

--Ken
Click to expand...
I have everything except the rail. I appreciate the answer and comment.
 
Member's gallery
Mike Delgado said:
I have everything except the rail. I appreciate the answer and comment.
Click to expand...
Nisi makes an affordable rail that works well. It sounds like you want to hit 1:1 or in that range, so the new 105 should be a good bet unless you have an older F body as well.

The 50 is more affordable, but it is not an S lens like the 105, and the working range is quite short.

--Ken
 
Member's gallery
These days with camera bodies doing focus bracketing, a macro rail is not necessary.

What working distance do you need? Working distance is the distance from the front of the lens (without hood) to the subject. You get more working distance with longer focal length lenses. A longer focal length is helpful with skittish insects (and dangerous ones like vipers and hornets). But they are more expensive and heavy, and make on-camera lighting more difficult. It is fine if you are photographing big bugs like butterflies in natural light. But when hand-holding and shooting small bugs, many of us use diffused flash. You need a bigger diffuser for longer distances or the light appears too harsh. And bigger diffusers are awkward.

So you can go for a shorter focal length macro lens. They are much cheaper and easier to handle, and don't need such a large diffuser sheet for lighting. But you will spook some bugs. Shorter FL macro lenses generally respond well to extension tubes, potentially allowing way more magnification.

There are pros and cons. For many of us, a ~100mm macro lens is a good compromise for handheld shooting.

If you are shooting on a macro stand (or tripod), then your requirements will be different. You will probably be able to arrange continuous lighting or flash with modifiers to suit.

Ken mentioned closeup lenses (auxiliary lenses). They can be a good solution and can be sharp enough.

Don't neglect lighting. You won't get good macro shots unless the lighting is good, no matter how good the lens is.
 
Member's gallery
One thing to consider is how much macro you'll be doing, what you already have, and how much you are willing to spend…and where your output goes. For instance…are you interested in 1:1 (i.e., true macro) or is close but something less than 1:1 sufficient. If it's the latter and you have a Z 100-400 then you can get to 0.38x which means that a 3.5 inch high statue fils the landscape frame top to bottom and with the addition of pretty inexpensive extension tube you can get closer…although not actually to 1:1 perhaps, I've never tried mine with all tubes in the set at the same time.

It's true that a dedicated macro lens being a prime and designed as a macro lens probably has better sharpness close up…especially at pixel peeping magnifications in LR but a lot of the difference at 1:1 or 2:1 goes away if you're downsampling for screen or print. However…if amount of usage and/or budget is a factor (and for me it was the first one…I shoot close up rarely but not never)…then the cost of the Z 105/2.8 might not be worth it. That's the route I chose but then again I'm not really all that into shooting little things close…but I did ask Dennis whether the 100-400 was adequate in CR for our summer trip or if I should spend the bucks (which I could do but it didn't seem like a good bang for the buck decision to me) and he concurred that for rare usage the 0.38x of the zoom or 0.5-0.6 with the tubes was probably good enough.

While undoubtedly the dedicated macro lens is the better overall solution for somebody that does or wants to do a lot of this sort of images…better is the enemy of good enough in almost all cases and I believe that decisions should be made with an analysis of as complete a set of factors as possible. So you need to ask yourself the questions up in the first sentence before making a decision…but I've only heard good things about the 105 macro Z lens…so it's a matter of whether the expense of it is worth it to you…although if you don't have the 100-400 then obviously that's not an option and the 70-200 doesn't focus nearly as close.
 
Member's gallery
I love the Z105 macro. Very sharp.

2024_04_29_Costa Rica2-2112-NEF-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Basically all macro lenses are sharp. That's because they are primes and generally used stopped down. So it doesn't matter if it is OEM or 3rd party or long or short. They are all sharp.

There can be differences in AF behavior though. And there can be differences when used at wider apertures. You need to use wider apertures when shooting at crazy-high magnifications like 3x or higher. That is to keep the effective aperture (the real aperture at the shooting conditions) at a reasonable value, generally f/22 or wider. Otherwise you get serious diffraction softening.
 
Member's gallery
Mike,
If you have an FTZ, you could get a set of Kenko F-mount extension tubes and use them with your 105 f/1.4 to try out close-up/macro photography. The system should AF with the Z cameras and also allow you to try focus stacking. If you have 68 mm of extension (12 + 20 + 36 mm with the three tubes), you'd get about 0.65x magnification and lose about 2/3 of a stop. You could also shoot with your 50 (in manual focus, since it's a "D" lens) and get up to about 1.4x life size images (or reverse the lens with a BR-2A reversing ring to get higher magnification.

Another alternative lens is the F-mount 105 G macro, which is really cheap these days.

Glen
 
Member's gallery
Here's a decent article discussing the older f mount options.
photographylife.com

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G VR Macro Review - Page 2 of 7

The lens that I’ve been using the longest as a photographer is the Nikon 105mm f/2.8G Macro - the F-mount lens, that is. Nikon has been selling it since 2006, and in that time it's gained a lofty reputation (not just among macro photographers, either). Today, I’m reviewing it in full.
photographylife.com photographylife.com

The author also discusses how the nikon G f2.8 isn't as good as the latest S version, but still very much worth using as a cost effective solution even with mirrorless.

I'm using an old 55mm micro nikkor f2.8 mf and a 300mm f4 pf with a d500. Just having fun but hope to get more into it later. I also have an old 200mm MF f4 I haven't tried yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top