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).

Member's gallery
Alan,
If that 200 f/4 is the AI version that takes 52 mm filters, you could use a 52 mm reverse mount filter adapter to put your 50 mm on the end of it and get 4:1 magnification (or tape the two lenses together instead of using a reversing adapter). Focus with the 200; you might get vignetting.

Mike,
If you're looking for some ideas about tools for close-up/macro photography, this Nikon sales manual is a good reference: https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00595/00595.pdf. I think it came out a little bit before your FG-20, but it still has a lot of relevant info. The PB-6 bellows still works with my Z8, 55 f/3.5 and f/2.8 Micro-Nikkors, and enlarging lenses.
 
Member's gallery
GlenW said:
Alan,
If that 200 f/4 is the AI version that takes 52 mm filters, you could use a 52 mm reverse mount filter adapter to put your 50 mm on the end of it and get 4:1 magnification (or tape the two lenses together instead of using a reversing adapter). Focus with the 200; you might get vignetting.

Mike,
If you're looking for some ideas about tools for close-up/macro photography, this Nikon sales manual is a good reference: https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00595/00595.pdf. I think it came out a little bit before your FG-20, but it still has a lot of relevant info. The PB-6 bellows still works with my Z8, 55 f/3.5 and f/2.8 Micro-Nikkors, and enlarging lenses.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I think I may try that! It takes 52mm filters. Sounds like fun to try.
 
Member's gallery
Mike Delgado said:
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
Click to expand...
The 105mmMC Z lens is fantas
but for bugs 200mm seems to work better.
the old F mount Nikkor is a great macro lens and macro is usuallt shor manual anyway.
Also a set of ectension tubes could make your present lenses usable (but will lose sone light)
A small flash will sharpen everything up ... 🦘
 
Member's gallery
Mike Delgado said:
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
Click to expand...
For a relatively novice macro photographer – wanting to get closer - seriously consider the 100–400 zoom :)

It covers a 4 inch wide subject – good for flowers – at 400 mm and gets more magnification with either a 1.4 converter, DX mode or modest image cropping..

For a relative novice this zoom has a big advantage over the 105 S for insect photography as you are far enough away with the zoom to see if an insect is in good condition. By the time you have carefully got close enough with the prime you may have scared it off - or it may too tatty to take :mad:

With 5 stops VR (slightly better than the prime) hand holding (camera shake increases because you are close up) getting very stable results are not difficult.

My advice is as a relative novice is normally forget about extension tubes for insects as tubes have very little magnification increase on longer focal length lenses.

Sure with patience to get close, patience to find an insect or flower in good condition, patience to find good lighting, patience to find a "clean" background and patience to wait for a lull in a light breeze (forgot windy conditions for macro outdoors) for the best results consider the 105 S - though without considerable patience and some skill best macro results are a rarity even with potentially the best equipment.

As of now there is no decent AF macro prime longer than 105mm for Nikon Z. In theory the Tamron f2.8 zoom is OK - except no VR and a significantly curved field at minimum focus. I owned it for just a few hours. Although good for longer focus distances I found it very unsatisfactory for macro - and returned it after less than 24 hours.

If you eventually decide you like macro a lot, this is a good time to consider focus rails, focus stacking etc.
 
Member's gallery
I have a Nikkor 85mm F3.5 Micro it does the job but have now switched to a Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro usng on my D500 and will use on my new Z8 with the F to Z converter. I went to a class with Mike Moats he was using the Tamron lens with great results so found one used at Roberts Camera in Indpls in excellent condition in original box with manual and got a 6 mo warrenty with it a no brainer buy.
 
Member's gallery
With my DSLR cameras my most used macro lens was the 200mm f/4 but with my Z cameras it is now the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens with its MFD of 1.6 feet. The 70-200mm provides a better working distance that provides more options for flash placement. I have the Z 105mm f/2.8 macro but use it less as it is a good focal length for small subjects, golf ball size or smaller.
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
With my DSLR cameras my most used macro lens was the 200mm f/4 but with my Z cameras it is now the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens with its MFD of 1.6 feet.
Click to expand...
I regard the 70–200 as more of a close-up than a macro lens as it goes no closer than a 7.5 inch wide subject though at the useful focused distance of 1.6 feet.

The 100–400 has a different specification covering a 4 inch wide subject at a less likely to scare an insect of 3.22 feet at 400 mm.

The focus distances are from the camera body sensor, not the front of the lens with or without lens hood.
 
Member's gallery
Len Shepherd said:
For a relatively novice macro photographer – wanting to get closer - seriously consider the 100–400 zoom :)

It covers a 4 inch wide subject – good for flowers – at 400 mm and gets more magnification with either a 1.4 converter, DX mode or modest image cropping..

For a relative novice this zoom has a big advantage over the 105 S for insect photography as you are far enough away with the zoom to see if an insect is in good condition. By the time you have carefully got close enough with the prime you may have scared it off - or it may too tatty to take :mad:

With 5 stops VR (slightly better than the prime) hand holding (camera shake increases because you are close up) getting very stable results are not difficult.

My advice is as a relative novice is normally forget about extension tubes for insects as tubes have very little magnification increase on longer focal length lenses.

Sure with patience to get close, patience to find an insect or flower in good condition, patience to find good lighting, patience to find a "clean" background and patience to wait for a lull in a light breeze (forgot windy conditions for macro outdoors) for the best results consider the 105 S - though without considerable patience and some skill best macro results are a rarity even with potentially the best equipment.

As of now there is no decent AF macro prime longer than 105mm for Nikon Z. In theory the Tamron f2.8 zoom is OK - except no VR and a significantly curved field at minimum focus. I owned it for just a few hours. Although good for longer focus distances I found it very unsatisfactory for macro - and returned it after less than 24 hours.

If you eventually decide you like macro a lot, this is a good time to consider focus rails, focus stacking etc.
Click to expand...
The 100-400 will get to about a metre but only close-up and not macro if that is enough... 🦘
 
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 take macro shots all the time with handheld with my D500 or D7500 and the Tamron 90mm 2.8 lens. You just need enough shutter speed. For example, this one:

BlueDasher-1.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


That said, I agree that a good telephoto can take a lot of nice shots of larger insects and such. I have a Tamron 100-400 and it can focus as close as 5 feet and a little. That's a lot of magnification, and for moving insects, it's a lot easier to get a shot with a setup like that than a true macro lens.

I have not been playing with flash yet, but I plan to do that soon.
 
Member's gallery
MarkB said:
I'm holding on to my Sigma 180mm f2.8 macro. I like the working distance and it will autofocus, most of the time. I wish someone would produce a longer updated macro for the Z mount.
Click to expand...
I agree - except I do not own the Sigma.

While the Nikon 100–400 including sometimes a TC can be a good substitute I would not expect it to closely match an around 200 mm Z macro prime with the latest optics, glass types, coatings and VR.
For Nikon users there is only one Nikon brand semi obsolete around 30 year old optical design lens. Although still optically good the 200 mm f4 macro does not auto focus or photo stack on Z.
While the market for a specialist longer focal length dedicated macro lens might not be as big as for bird photography, many photographers are definitely waiting for the right product to appear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
Member's gallery
Roy said:
Since neatly all real Macro is done in manual mode there is a horde of great old macro lenses.
And extension tubes are another cheap alternate ...🦘
Click to expand...
My views are different.
Many insects in flight shots are done using AF.

Focus stacking with recent AF lenses is a big advance for many. There is a bigger risk of loosing alignment between shots doing it manually though I agree an electronic focus stacking extension rail system is available for over £/$ 2,000.

Greater colour accuracy, contrast, resolution and VR when hand holding come with many recent lenses.

Extension tubes sometimes do not cut it with ML as they can interfere with the exact lens/sensor distance often precisely fixed for highest resolution and minimum colour fringing.

I am not saying good macro photos cannot be taken with perhaps 30-40 year old macro lenses, anymore than some excellent static (infrequently in flight) bird photographs are or were taken with MF telephoto lenses.

My view is a modern longer focal length macro lens than 105mm could help revolutionise the ease and scope of macro photography in much the same way as 5 relatively affordable and 2 expensive (by almost any standard) Z telephotos have done for bird and action photography.
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
Since neatly all real Macro is done in manual mode there is a horde of great old macro lenses.
And extension tubes are another cheap alternate ...🦘
Click to expand...
Nearly all my macro photography is done in auto focus mode.

If you are hand-holding in the field as I usually do, it is nearly impossible to acquire critical focus manually. The viewfinder does not show the focusing process clearly enough unless you can magnify the view. And magnifying on the fly ;) is difficult. Things are in motion, and that will spoil precise focus.

Autofocus also usually isn't able to focus critically on a macro subject. However, AF facilitates finding the subject easily in the viewfinder when you are still some distance away. You can then move in closer while the camera deals with focus. If you can get several shots, one or more will probably be sharp enough where it needs to be.

Sometimes the AF method fails and then I resort to MF. (Easy with back-button AF.)

In the macro studio where the camera is on a stand, it is all different. Then I use manual focus.
 
Member's gallery
I tried using a Sigma macro lens with the FTZ adapter on a Z9 and the camera was not able to communicate with the lens. For frogs and snakes I focus by manually moving the DSLR camera until the subject is in focus and then trip the shutter.

With the Z9 and not being able to use the Nikon 200mm f/4 micro lens I need to make compromises and use a non-macro lens. If macro was important I would have held onto a D850 and the 200mm lens.
 
Member's gallery
I have the z105 and it is excellent even though it often favors focus stacking. I'm starting to try closeups with my z100-400. If it works well I might consider selling the 105 as I might not use it much. But it is much lighter, which is not to be scoffed at.
 
Member's gallery
MarkB said:
I'm holding on to my Sigma 180mm f2.8 macro. I like the working distance and it will autofocus, most of the time. I wish someone would produce a longer updated macro for the Z mount.
Click to expand...
I also use the Sigma 180mm f2.8 macro usinf the ftz 2 adaptor and love the working distance. I started with Nikon 60mm f2.8 before that and still have it but working distance is much smaller.

I noticed that the OP has a Z 70-200mm f2.8 which I also have. I have had very good results using this in conjunction with a Sirui close up lens when out and about to reduce the gear I am carrying. The Sirui comes in 2 sizes (52mm and 77mm) and the 77mm adapts well to the 70- 200. I have used this successfully with good results and this could provide a cheaper introduction to macro with a working distance of 22-30 cm and no loss /reduction in f stop that you have with an extension tube.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Basil said:
I also use the Sigma 180mm f2.8 macro usinf the ftz 2 adaptor and love the working distance. I started with Nikon 60mm f2.8 before that and still have it but working distance is much smaller.

I noticed that the OP has a Z 70-200mm f2.8 which I also have. I have had very good results using this in conjunction with a Sirui close up lens when out and about to reduce the gear I am carrying. The Sirui comes in 2 sizes (52mm and 77mm) and the 77mm adapts well to the 70- 200. I have used this successfully with good results and this could provide a cheaper introduction to macro with a working distance of 22-30 mm and no loss /reduction in f stop that you have with extension tube.
Click to expand...
Do you mean "working distance of 22-30 cm"? I too have used a closeup lens (Canon 500D) on a zoom lens and got good results with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top