LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Camera Help

Home Forums The Lounge Camera Help

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Stefan 7 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #301541

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Well I’m now the proud owner of a Nikon D5100 body and kit lens but would appreciate recommendations for both macro and telephoto lenses please.

    #344380

    Bully
    Participant

    If you can afford it, then obviously Nikon’s own lenses are considered the best match. We cannot afford them, so have supplemented the wife’s D5000 with a Tamron 70-300mm Zoom lens:

    Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD Macro (Nikon AF)

    Now, it’s a great lens for the price but, there are a few issues….. It’s not a true macro lens, although you can get good results – you actually need to be about 1m away from the subject. At this price, the lens does not come with image stabilisation (IS), which is fine if you’re shooting still on a tripod. If you’re not on a tripod then you’ve got little chance of taking great shots when you’re zooming in (unless you have a super-still hand). So, if you intend to zoom in on flying birds etc., then you’re going to need spend lots more for a lens with IS.

    For true macro lens, I have no idea which is best, but previous research suggests a 105mm would be better for my own purposes as it allows a little more area for focus, and you’re not required to get extremely close to the subject to get it in focus. I suppose it’s all down to what you intend to shoot.

    I will say this though, I recently attended an exhibition for my wife’s photography course and there was a student there who had shot a few subjects with a macro lens, and I actually thought he had lost detail as a result – I was disappointed with his results compared to others who had shot similar subjects with just the kit lens. This of course goes to the photographers skill, rather than a flaw with the lens

    #344381

    dunc
    Keymaster

    in my experience you’d be much better off purchasing a good quality 100mm prime (or 60mm, depending upon how close you’ll tend to be when taking the shots) than any kind of zoom lens.

    unless you pay big bucks, the quality of zoom lens optics simply can’t compare to a prime

    dunno about Nikon but Canon’s L range is always where I’d aim these days. they’re expensive but the quality difference is genuinely phenomenal. it takes DSLR usage from “ooh that’s a pretty photo” to “WOW, that looks so good/professional”.

    #344382

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Thanks guys. I already have the camera body so Canon is a no-no though Dunc. Guessing it’d be best to buy separate lenses for macro/zoom, respectively?

    #344383

    dunc
    Keymaster

    sorry – I mean you’ll be able to get the equivalent for a Nikon, I just don’t know what that is because I don’t know anything about them http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-…r-lens/p1012423

    that looks to be their equivalent. lot of money, but check eBay and I’m sure you’ll be able to get it for just over half that.

    lens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> body in importance when it comes to quality of photos.

    #344384

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Would that do for both macro photos and, say, zooming in on birds, etc.?

    #344385

    Plaamoo
    Participant

    Hey Matt, glad you took the dive! I’m not familiar with that model. Are there any lenses it doesn’t accept/auto-focus/meter with? I’ll have a look on the net.
    I use the Nikon 60mm Micro and love it. I like getting close to the glass but I’m sure there are advantages to being farther away with the 105. One such issue is using the pop up flash. It won’t get past the lens if the subject is too close. But you’ll need an SB 600 external flash anyway if you’re going to get serious. I’ve been wanting a 105 also but haven’t been able to afford it. In my research it looks like the Tokina 100mm is even better than the Nikon 105 macro.
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/100mm-f28.htm
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

    For the long range stuff it depends,as usual, on what quality you want to accept. I have a sigma 135-400 that I quite like but it’s a beast to carry around. If you want top quality pics, as already mentioned, you’d do better with a fixed length. Anything long enough, sharp enough, with a low enough f-stop to shoot in lower light wich is usually when you see critters, is going to be big-heavy-and expensive!
    For my everyday stuff i just use the 18-55 kit lens ans it workd great!
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm
    Good luck & have fun!!

    #344387

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Thanks a lot Jim, great advice! I’m going to get the external flash as well yes. Will have a read up on the Tokina lens.

    #344390

    Plaamoo
    Participant

    Just had a read here and it looks like a great camera Matt! Ken likes it. His test shots are amazing!
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5100.htm

    #344391

    a.d.wood
    Participant

    Afternoon Matt,

    I use a Nikon D80 for my fish photography.

    For the macro work I use the Sigma 105mm f2.8 DG macro. Wonderful lens and I’d recommend it to anyone looking for a macro option.

    Key thing for aquarium photography is an external flash (so that you can be in front of the camera and the flash gun above the tank). One thing I have found is that if you want to use the remote trigger for a the flash then it is best to have camera and flash gun the same brand!!! I don’t (found this out the hard way) and found the easiest option was just to use a cable extension off the camera hotshoe to the flash gun, no worries about flash sync then and with a 2m cable you have plenty of room to work with!!

    Andrew

    #344399

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Thanks Andrew. Seems a 105 mm lens is definitely the way to go then.

    Jim, it seems very nice but I literally have no clue how to use it so got some reading to do!

    General question – is a single external flash sufficient?

    #344402

    Plaamoo
    Participant

    For taking fish photos, I’d say yes. I only have one. Thought I’d lost it when it fell in the stream in Thailand! Dried it well with a hair dryer and it’s good as new

    #344403

    dunc
    Keymaster

    also, if it’s for fish in aquaria, the 105mm will likely have far too high a “minimum focus distance”, which means you’ll have to stand quite some distance from the tank – it’s something to check on the specs

    the 60mm will allow you to get closer, which although it shouldn’t make much of a difference to the end result (as the 105mm is more “zoomed in” than the 60mm), it will be easier to use for that purpose.

    I’d love a 60mm prime but the canon 60mm is pretty poor. I’ve got it, but it’s pretty poor all the same /smile.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:)” border=”0″ alt=”smile.gif” />

    #344405

    Plaamoo
    Participant

    Just took this from my deck with the Sigma 135-400, hand held. And it has some pretty bad fungus on the inside glas I need to get removed. I touched it up a wee bit in NX2.

    #344406

    a.d.wood
    Participant

    QUOTE (dunc @ Jul 1 2011, 02:49 PM) < {POST_SNAPBACK}>
    also, if it’s for fish in aquaria, the 105mm will likely have far too high a “minimum focus distance”, which means you’ll have to stand quite some distance from the tank – it’s something to check on the specs
    …………………..

    All depends on what you are photographing. As the majority of my fish are dwarf then I’m working quite close to the tank, maybe up to 20 or 30cm away from the front of the tank on occasions but often a lot closer.

    Andrew

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.