Nikon d90 macro???

[dynamictank]

I have a nikon d90

Sun is my birthday and i wanna get a lens for my camera
What macro lens do u suggest for my tank
Lights r led bridglux
Tank is a 180

 

[Deanos]

What's your budget?

 

[skene]

If your budget is under $300 you may want to look into the Nikon 40mm 2.8G Micro lens. Good lens for a budget, can get you pretty up close and personal and you can put the lens directly against the tank.
If you have a little/lot more to spend you can go with the 60mm, 85mm or the 105mm.
You will need to keep in mind that the price goes up when you go to the upper focal lengths. But it really all depends on what you are planning on shooting.
If it's just for tank photos then the 40mm will be all you need, because if you need to get in closer, you can use the crop mode to zoom in. This lens is also a good general lens to do portraits and landscapes with. Comparable to the nikon 35mm lens.
If you plan on using the lens to shoot wildlife you may want to step it up to a longer focal length, but you limit what you can take of the tank the larger you get.

If a new Nikon lens isn't within your budget you can also take a look into going used/refurbished or another brand and see if that suits your needs. Look into Sigma, Tokina and Tamron.

 

[marki24]

whatever choice you make I strongly recommend that you go with a nikon glass. From experience they are the best for a Nikon body.

 

[Silvergumby]

Research the lens before you buy it. In fact, there are places online that you can rent a lens to try it out before you buy it. I bought the AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm 1:3.5G lens hoping to take really cool shots inside my aquarium. I find that the micro lenses have a very thin/fine field of view, meaning that you lose depth in your focal capabilities. For example, I can get great photos of something like a gold coin looking straight down on it, but if I try to focus on a large coral in a tank, I am only able to focus on a very small part of the coral (like the front of it) and the rest of the coral is out of focus (blurry). Keep in mind that I'm only an amateur with my D40, but I thought it was worth mentioning this before you drop big money a lens that you may wind up being disappointed in. BTW: I get better tank shout with a standard zoom lens, like a 18-105mm.

 

[skene]

Research the lens before you buy it. In fact, there are places online that you can rent a lens to try it out before you buy it. I bought the AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm 1:3.5G lens hoping to take really cool shots inside my aquarium. I find that the micro lenses have a very thin/fine field of view, meaning that you lose depth in your focal capabilities. For example, I can get great photos of something like a gold coin looking straight down on it, but if I try to focus on a large coral in a tank, I am only able to focus on a very small part of the coral (like the front of it) and the rest of the coral is out of focus (blurry). Keep in mind that I'm only an amateur with my D40, but I thought it was worth mentioning this before you drop big money a lens that you may wind up being disappointed in. BTW: I get better tank shout with a standard zoom lens, like a 18-105mm.

Those are the reasons why I recommended going to a 40mm... because you have a greater focal length with the 85mm you cannot get shots from close up unless you have distance. The 40mm will allow him to press up against the glass to get some good pictures without what you describe.

 

[Silvergumby]

That's good to know. I thought I'd be better off with the 85... maybe I'll trade in the 85 for a 40.

 

[marki24]

85mm 1.4?

 

[Silvergumby]

I'm using an AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm 1:3.5G

 

[smoq]

Research the lens before you buy it. In fact, there are places online that you can rent a lens to try it out before you buy it. I bought the AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm 1:3.5G lens hoping to take really cool shots inside my aquarium. I find that the micro lenses have a very thin/fine field of view, meaning that you lose depth in your focal capabilities. For example, I can get great photos of something like a gold coin looking straight down on it, but if I try to focus on a large coral in a tank, I am only able to focus on a very small part of the coral (like the front of it) and the rest of the coral is out of focus (blurry). Keep in mind that I'm only an amateur with my D40, but I thought it was worth mentioning this before you drop big money a lens that you may wind up being disappointed in. BTW: I get better tank shout with a standard zoom lens, like a 18-105mm.

A true macro lens has indeed rather shallow depth of field but that's not a weakness considering the 1:1 magnification ratio they offer. The more magnification the shallower depth of field, that's just physics of optics. Look at microscopes, they have extremely shallow depth of field. Macro lens is not for everybody unfortunately, the learning curve is much more steep compared to regular zoom lens. However, no standard zoom lens can match the level of detail at that magnification ratio.

Those are the reasons why I recommended going to a 40mm... because you have a greater focal length with the 85mm you cannot get shots from close up unless you have distance. The 40mm will allow him to press up against the glass to get some good pictures without what you describe.

The difference between a 40mm macro and a, for example, 90mm macro is that the minimum working distance (the distance between your subject and the front of lens) to achieve 1:1 magnification ratio for a 40mm is around 3cm (little over 1"") for most lenses, while for 90mm macro the value is around 4 -6". What that means is you have to be 1" from your subject to have 1:1 magnification on a 40mm macro compared to 4-6" for a 90mm. In real world it translates to a situation where everything you want to photograph at true 1:1 macro level has to be right in front of the glass for a 40mm, while at 90mm you have 6" of freedom. A 90, 100 or 105mm macro lenses are much better for aquarium photography in my opinion. If you find some time, please read fourth part of my aquarium photography article where I talk about various lenses and their use for a reef tank environment http://www.reefs.com/blog/2012/01/11/aquarium-photography-guide-part-iv-lenses/
Hope that helps

 

[skene]

So marcin... what exactly did you do other than reword what I had already reiterated.

:lol2:

 

[smoq]

So marcin... what exactly did you do other than reword what I had already reiterated.

:lol2:

I didn't want to argue with you, no hard feelings, but a 40mm macro over 85 or 90mm is a bad choice unless the subject are diamond rings or all your frags are in front of the tank.

 

[skene]

not true... Crop is a wonderful thing. I can go into fine details with any of the shots that I have done with minimal noise. With cameras being available 10+mp, you are able to do that.
But otherwise I will not argue a point in doing post production work on photos.

But also do keep in mind, while I do agree that a larger length does not hurt... not everyone is going to want to spend $500+ on an 85+mm lens. They do photography with this as hobbyists and would like to keep it as so. So in the end... just because some may feel that you need to go with a lengthier lens, it may not suit others means or necessity.

So being a photographer, sometimes you have to take a step back and offer an option and opinion rather than try to make your comments and recomendations absolute.

 

[smoq]

But also do keep in mind, while I do agree that a larger length does not hurt... not everyone is going to want to spend $500+ on an 85+mm lens. They do photography with this as hobbyists and would like to keep it as so. So in the end... just because some may feel that you need to go with a lengthier lens, it may not suit others means or necessity.

So being a photographer, sometimes you have to take a step back and offer an option and opinion rather than try to make your comments and recomendations absolute.

First of all, I didn't try my recommendations to be absolute because they are, well... recommendations. If you feel that way then your reply has the same exact tone to it. Dynamictank asked for an advice about buying a macro lens to shoot his 180g tank and I gave him/her one. A 180g tank is gonna be at least 20" deep (unless he has an unusual shaped aquarium, then correct me if I am wrong) and so he/she is gonna have much more use out of a 90 or 100mm macro lens than a 40mm. Comparing a cropped image details to a true 1:1 magnification doesn't make any sense to me either, if you feel like it can give you the same amount of detail then sorry, but my opinion is you've never used a macro lens before or never compared the two.
Coming back to the original topic, I would advice dynamictank to try and see how a macro lens works before buying one, it a serious money but well worth it if you are willing to practice with it and understand macro lens limitations. A good cheap alternative to a macro lens would be a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens that sells for around $150. It won't give you the same results as a true macro, but it has excellent optics and it's a great value for the money. Just FIY, I used a Nikon D90 with a Tamron 90mm macro for some of my macro shots, now using D7000 with the same lens.

 

[skene]

While I will not say that I have used anything in between 60-85mm, I must digress that.. I do and have played with my current 40mm and occasionally use a canon w/100mm.. and both have their benefits and shortcomings.

So back to keeping on topic... try out and purchase whatever is within the budget of the OP.

 

[rbtwo4]

First of all, I didn't try my recommendations to be absolute because they are, well... recommendations. If you feel that way then your reply has the same exact tone to it. Dynamictank asked for an advice about buying a macro lens to shoot his 180g tank and I gave him/her one. A 180g tank is gonna be at least 20" deep (unless he has an unusual shaped aquarium, then correct me if I am wrong) and so he/she is gonna have much more use out of a 90 or 100mm macro lens than a 40mm. Comparing a cropped image details to a true 1:1 magnification doesn't make any sense to me either, if you feel like it can give you the same amount of detail then sorry, but my opinion is you've never used a macro lens before or never compared the two.
Coming back to the original topic, I would advice dynamictank to try and see how a macro lens works before buying one, it a serious money but well worth it if you are willing to practice with it and understand macro lens limitations. A good cheap alternative to a macro lens would be a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens that sells for around $150. It won't give you the same results as a true macro, but it has excellent optics and it's a great value for the money. Just FIY, I used a Nikon D90 with a Tamron 90mm macro for some of my macro shots, now using D7000 with the same lens.

ive read a lot of good things about that tamron 90 whats ur opinion of it? id rather stick to nikon glass but its hard not to consider that tamron based on all the good ive read about it.

 

[rbtwo4]

Just for record I know Harry aka grknyer has a macro I think it's a 90mm could be wrong and he has no reef and let me tell u that lens is awesome not only for reef but for portrait shots too.

 

[TheHun]

tokina 100 mm macro is much better than tamaron 90 mm

I posted this review about the tokina few dozen times... LOL

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/100mm-f28.htm

"Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AF Macro is a great lens for macro, and especially good for any use as a portrait or telephoto lens. It is probably the best 100mm or 105mm macro there is, and costs half of what other lenses cost."

 

[Dre]

I don't know how better the Tokina really is but here are some pics taken from outside my tank with the Taron 90mm. I'm by no means a pro...

 

[grknyer]

Just for record I know Harry aka grknyer has a macro I think it's a 90mm could be wrong and he has no reef and let me tell u that lens is awesome not only for reef but for portrait shots too.

Rob it's the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED . This is an FX lens so if you use it on a DX body the focal length becomes something like 157.5 mm. I have since upgraded to a full frame camera with the savings of not having a reef tank so I get actual 105mm now. I originally bought it for taking pictures of corals but that got old real quick and the I started to use it for portraits mostly. I Absolutely love this lens.
Nikon glass for me only but if I had to buy a third party lens it would be Carl Zeiss