The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by mbriant

You're probably right but I would think a tripod and/or flash/fill flash would usually be in order for most macro shots anyway....especially in low light. Shooting tight macro shots in low light and handheld would make a wide aperture necessary with any focal length and therefore limit an already limited depth of field. But to answer your question, not VR.

Are there any macro lenses that could double as a good portrait lens?

See ya
Steve

[mbriant]

I'm not sure. Usually when a lens is specialized (such as macro, perspective control, etc.), it's never the best choice for other types of shots. But that shouldn't mean it would be terrible either. I would think the 180 would be good for certain head shots, but I've never tried.

[poo]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Are there any macro lenses that could double as a good portrait lens?

See ya
Steve

100mm macro (especially on a non full frame camera) will give you a pretty impressive portrait result.

[lan]

105VR could be used for portraits also.

I got me a MB-D10 today It should help with a lot of vertical shots. I like that it weighs so little.

[poo]

Originally Posted by skyline889

If they were going to do this, I would've expected them to release it at the same time as the D3 and the D300 but I guess their R&D was too saturated with the other two new bodies at the time? I figured that since they didn't release it at the same time, they were trying to play off the D3 for FF since I've seen a lot of people, who don't need anything close to the D3, step up to it simply because of the FX sensor. A 5D competitor would probably bring in enough sales that it wouldn't really matter though.

R&D yes, but more because of release schedules and marketing plans. Pretty rare for any camera manufacturer to release its new flagship and its slightly lesser sibling at the same time. Too much for the market with the D300 release at the same time, and they would have missed out on sales. As you mentioned - many people stepped up to the D3 just for full frame - why introduce a cheaper alternative at the same time then?

A bit of googling will reveal some details leaked through a recent firmware upgrade to the D3 for those who want a little more of what is to come - be aware that alot of that info is misleading (like the 24 megapixel stuff - why would the D3 be replaced so early? And a new smaller brother with a higher MP sensor - yeah right!).

[uppis]

Originally Posted by lan

I got me a cheap Nikon extension tube. I'm going to have a go at some flower macro shots. I don't feel like paying for a full time macro lens just yet. It looks like my 50 1.8 has a new function.

Have you tried reverse mounting ring for 52mm filter thread, works also nicely with 50 1.8 as macro. If I remember right its supposed to give 0.7x lifesize, only drawback is missing focus. But for 10$ I think it is just fine.
But to my actual question, which tube you got, how close to lifesize it goes?
And yes, MD-D10 is must have for D300.

[bigshot]

I've been doing some googling today, and I'm finding that Tokina makes a great line of lenses. Apparently, they're ex-Nikon lens designers who split off because Nikon was headed towards focusing on primes rather than zooms after the poor performance of the Nikkor 43-86 (which I have and it does indeed perform poorly).

Tokina has two more lenses that I am considering... a 100mm f2.8 1:1 macro that apparently has slightly sharper optics than the Nikon equivalent, and the 300mm f2.8 tele that is $2,000 less than the Nikon with no less image quality (just 10% slower autofocus). I can live with that for 2 grand!

I just ordered the 100mm. It should be here after Passover.

See ya
Steve

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I've been doing some googling today, and I'm finding that Tokina makes a great line of lenses. Apparently, they're ex-Nikon lens designers who split off because Nikon was headed towards focusing on primes rather than zooms after the poor performance of the Nikkor 43-86 (which I have and it does indeed perform poorly).

Tokina has two more lenses that I am considering... a 100mm f2.8 1:1 macro that apparently has slightly sharper optics than the Nikon equivalent, and the 300mm f2.8 tele that is $2,000 less than the Nikon with no less image quality (just 10% slower autofocus). I can live with that for 2 grand!

I just ordered the 100mm. It should be here after Passover.

See ya
Steve

Tokina seems to be one of the more respected 3rd party lens makes (compared to sigma and tamron).
That 100mm Macro sure does look interesting. If I had a bit more money I would be considering it or the nikon 105VR right now.

[Old Pa]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Are there any macro lenses that could double as a good portrait lens?

Originally Posted by poo

100mm macro (especially on a non full frame camera) will give you a pretty impressive portrait result.

My Tamron SP Di AF 90mm/f2.8 Macro 1:1 (135mm 35mm equivalent) works well in these capacities for me. The "stand off" distance you get helps with both macro and portrait. And it's bright.

[lan]

Originally Posted by uppis

Have you tried reverse mounting ring for 52mm filter thread, works also nicely with 50 1.8 as macro. If I remember right its supposed to give 0.7x lifesize, only drawback is missing focus. But for 10$ I think it is just fine.
But to my actual question, which tube you got, how close to lifesize it goes?
And yes, MD-D10 is must have for D300.

Actually never thought about reversing the zoom ring.

I got an old E2 tube which is about 14mm. It's pre AI or anything really (ancient ) so I'm going full manual. There's a pin plunger to open up the aperture. I'll be using my 55-200VR. With auto ISO and live view it should be easy to work with.