Macro or close-up?

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).

Andrew Lamberson

Andrew Lamberson

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
This is with my Nikkor 200 - 500 on a Nikon D500. Ok...or should I risk spooking the target and get a better shot with macro?

Suggestions for a macro for my D500? I have a birthday coming up.
MVIMG_20200913_214154.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Macro
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
That looks like a heavy crop given the grid like pixelation in the image, either that or you shot through a window screen. I'd go with some kind of macro that let's you get a lot closer to filling your viewfinder so that you can minimize cropping.

For living macro the go to for decades has been a macro focusing lens in the 200mm range. It gives a fair amount of working distance for live subject work. Sure you'll still need to get closer than you can with a 500mm lens but not nearly as close as you would with a 60mm or 105mm macro lens.

Tamron has a nice 150mm 1:1 focusing macro lens that is a great lens but the working distance for 1:1 macro is still only about 8" to 10" or so which is a bit close. Running it with their matching 1.4x teleconverter allows you to frame fill from a bit further back and end up with a macro lens for 1:1 frame fills of around 210mm which is pretty decent.

Other options include something like a 200mm or 300mm lens (e.g 300mm f/4) with a 36mm or stacked 36mm, 20mm extension tubes. That gives you a bit more working distance than a 200mm macro but won't get all the way to 1:1 focus (subject size completely fills sensor size) on a full frame DSLR or Mirrorless. A set of Kenko AF extension tubes isn't very expensive and can work great on fixed focal length lenses or a zoom if you treat it like a fixed length lens and don't zoom in and out when the tube is attached.

Another option is running a Diopter like the Canon 500D or equivalent that screws on like a filter in front of the lens. These are a lot like reading glasses for a lens and dramatically decreases the close focusing distance. This is a better option than extension tubes for use with zoom lenses (e.g. 70-200mm or 70-300mm zoom) as extension tubes plus zooming is a nightmare as focus, zoom and extension are all intertwined so the lens can drive you nuts trying to focus as you zoom when tubes are attached. With a closeup diopter your working range is more or less fixed across a narrow range but you can zoom in and out for framing without driving your focusing nuts. There are some cheap diopters out there but I'd avoid them and go for a quality diopter with filter threading to match the lens you plan to use it with. Nikon makes some (5T, 6T) but stick with high quality optics to put in front of your lens for the best results. You don't need to match a diopter brand to a camera or lens brand as they're basically just like filters that screw on the front of your lenses. I regularly used a Canon 500D diopter (77mm) with my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and it worked great.

The big downside of either extension tubes or diopters vs a dedicated macro (nikon calls them micro) lens is that you lose the ability to focus far away when either the extension tubes or diopter are mounted. So if you're photographing something like that grasshopper and using either extension tubes or a diopter and suddenly a hawk lands 20 feet away in perfect light you won't be able to turn and focus on the hawk until you remove whatever macro accessory you're using. A dedicated macro lens doesn't have this restriction and can focus close up or far away with no problems.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I use multiple options including a Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 micro, the old and wonderful Nikkor 70-180mm micro with the Nikkor 6T closeup lens. I also use the Canon 500D on the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 or the Nikkor 28-300. They all work well, though each is a little different. Given its close minimum focus distance, the 200-500 is good for quick captures of butterflies and other larger insects when a quick opportunity pops up.

When in our home gardens shooting flowers, the dedicated macro lenses work quite well and I don’t have to worry about changing lenses. At a botanical garden when I cannot always zoom with my feet, since they object to people stepping in their planted gardens, the 70-180 zoom macro or the 28-300 and the Canon 500D work quite well.

I sometimes use extension tubes, but usually for fixed work on a tripod. They work well but as noted above are finicky. If you can only chhose one, a dedicated macro lens is a good choice in the 105mm orr longer range to give decent working distance! The longer macros can also double as a decent portrait lens.
 
Member's gallery
Be wary when buying a macro, I initially went for a Sigma 150mm which I thought would give me that bit more distance so I didn't spook stuff. It certainly did do that and it was a very good lens. The caveat here is the lens was just too heavy. In theory one could use a tripod, however that is not always practical, in my experience seldom practical, I therefore changed it. It was a toss up between the Nikon or Sigma 105mm macro for me. I tried them both and found not a lot of difference. So the decision came down to cost. I now have the Sigma and have no regrets. But if it's your birthday then get them to buy you the Nikon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top