Reading mode: Light Dark

Macro- My situation

Go to last post
S

Sofaspud

Member
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Location
Sandbach, UK
Hi all.

I have a few beginner questions on Macro. I have seached the forums but cannot find the answers.

1) I can see the advantages but what are the disadvantages in any of a longer working distance (Sigma 150mm vs Nikon 60mm)

2) In order to get 1:1 you have to be at the minmum distance I believe. What happens if you get closer than that- is the shot just not in focus?

3) If you use extention tubes do you lose image quality?

4) Everything I read talks about using tripods for Macro which I can understand but can you get good results handheld? I note VR is not useful at 1:1 or on a tripod.

5) I have an sb600 is that enough for Macro work (Camera is a D90)?

Finally I am considering either the Nikon 105VR or Sigma 150mm. I already have the 70-300mm VR so having a 105mm VR lens for non macro work is not a major seller. I will be mainly using the lens for macro work and ideally mostly handheld.

I am swayed to the sigma because as a pure macro lens (which is what I will be using my new purchase for) it seems to be the better of the two, have the greater working distance and a tripod collar if I do use a tripod. I am concerned however that I will not be able to use it handheld.

Are there any sigma 150mm users that use it handheld?

Thanks
 
Sofaspud said:
Hi all.

I have a few beginner questions on Macro. I have seached the forums but cannot find the answers.

1) I can see the advantages but what are the disadvantages in any of a longer working distance (Sigma 150mm vs Nikon 60mm)
Click to expand...
The 150 is heavier and because of it's longer focal length, it's harder to hand-hold. You'll want a tripod for macro work.
Sofaspud said:
2) In order to get 1:1 you have to be at the minmum distance I believe. What happens if you get closer than that- is the shot just not in focus?
Click to expand...
Correct
Sofaspud said:
3) If you use extention tubes do you lose image quality?
Click to expand...
Not really, the tubes are hollow of course. You do lose light, however, and the depth of field gets shallower. It's certainly tripod territory unless you use a flash at high speed.
Sofaspud said:
4) Everything I read talks about using tripods for Macro which I can understand but can you get good results handheld? I note VR is not useful at 1:1 or on a tripod.
Click to expand...
With a steady hand, a lot of light, and something to brace yourself against, you can get some keepers. But you'll also find that you lose of a lot of shots.
Sofaspud said:
5) I have an sb600 is that enough for Macro work (Camera is a D90)?

Finally I am considering either the Nikon 105VR or Sigma 150mm. I already have the 70-300mm VR so having a 105mm VR lens for non macro work is not a major seller. I will be mainly using the lens for macro work and ideally mostly handheld.
Click to expand...
Forget the 150 if your intention is to shoot macro. Like I said, you'll get a good shot once in a while, but ultimately, it's an exercise in futility.
Sofaspud said:
I am swayed to the sigma because as a pure macro lens (which is what I will be using my new purchase for) it seems to be the better of the two, have the greater working distance and a tripod collar if I do use a tripod. I am concerned however that I will not be able to use it handheld.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by the Sigma being a pure macro lens. It's no more pure than the Nikon 105 macro. And yes, you should be concerned about using the Sigma hand held for macro work. If you're intent on shooting hand held, I'd get the Nikon. As you noted, it won't help at 1:1, but if you're shooting in the 1:3 or 1:4 range for flowers, it will be a help.
Sofaspud said:
Are there any sigma 150mm users that use it handheld?
Click to expand...
I've only owned one for a few weeks and returned it. It can produce very sharp images, but definitely needs a tripod to really take advantage of its macro capabilities

Alan
--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
 
ARClark said:
Sofaspud said:
Hi all.

I have a few beginner questions on Macro. I have seached the forums but cannot find the answers.

1) I can see the advantages but what are the disadvantages in any of a longer working distance (Sigma 150mm vs Nikon 60mm)
Click to expand...
The 150 is heavier and because of it's longer focal length, it's harder to hand-hold. You'll want a tripod for macro work.
ARClark said:
2) In order to get 1:1 you have to be at the minmum distance I believe. What happens if you get closer than that- is the shot just not in focus?
Click to expand...
Correct
ARClark said:
3) If you use extention tubes do you lose image quality?
Click to expand...
Not really, the tubes are hollow of course. You do lose light, however, and the depth of field gets shallower. It's certainly tripod territory unless you use a flash at high speed.
ARClark said:
4) Everything I read talks about using tripods for Macro which I can understand but can you get good results handheld? I note VR is not useful at 1:1 or on a tripod.
Click to expand...
With a steady hand, a lot of light, and something to brace yourself against, you can get some keepers. But you'll also find that you lose of a lot of shots.
ARClark said:
5) I have an sb600 is that enough for Macro work (Camera is a D90)?

Finally I am considering either the Nikon 105VR or Sigma 150mm. I already have the 70-300mm VR so having a 105mm VR lens for non macro work is not a major seller. I will be mainly using the lens for macro work and ideally mostly handheld.
Click to expand...
Forget the 150 if your intention is to shoot macro. Like I said, you'll get a good shot once in a while, but ultimately, it's an exercise in futility.
ARClark said:
I am swayed to the sigma because as a pure macro lens (which is what I will be using my new purchase for) it seems to be the better of the two, have the greater working distance and a tripod collar if I do use a tripod. I am concerned however that I will not be able to use it handheld.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by the Sigma being a pure macro lens. It's no more pure than the Nikon 105 macro. And yes, you should be concerned about using the Sigma hand held for macro work. If you're intent on shooting hand held, I'd get the Nikon. As you noted, it won't help at 1:1, but if you're shooting in the 1:3 or 1:4 range for flowers, it will be a help.
ARClark said:
Are there any sigma 150mm users that use it handheld?
Click to expand...
I've only owned one for a few weeks and returned it. It can produce very sharp images, but definitely needs a tripod to really take advantage of its macro capabilities

Alan
--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
Agree with ARClark mostly, though it is not clear why nikon is better for handheld (unless the 105 or 85 VR was meant, but the OP specifically asked about 60mm nikon and 150mm sigma neither of which has VR/OS)

Just to add more clarity - with magnification close to 1:1 handheld isn't possible even if you can manage fast speeds with VR, flash or otherwise good light - the reason is focusing itself. With this close distance you lens positioning must be so precise, it is humanly impossible.

Another thing about using tubes - the answer depends on lens. You cannot use any regular lens with tubes as the quality of image will certainly deteriorate. Macro lenses designed with close focusing in mind and on nikon lenses this is often referred to as Close Range Correction (CRC). Only handful of regular lenses will allow tubes with good results, but never to 1:1. I think (not 100% sure, but just think) that all macro lenses will allow tubes and this will drive you past 1:1 to a greater mag.

Nik
 
If you want to handhold shots that are closer than about 1:3 and get good results (let's say a majority of shots to be keepers in terms of sharpness), you will need either a macro lens with VR (Nikon 85mm DX or 105mm) or flash. My experience is that a VR macro lens will get you about 80% sharp shots at 1:2, but this depends on shutter speed and what Thom Hogan calls "shot discipline." Be certain that you know what 1:3 actually means in terms of what you want to shoot. In other words, VR on a macro lens will usually get you sharp photos between 1:3 and 1:2 on a macro lens. By my experience, this is often the key range of shooting closeups on such subjects as flowers.

The SB-600 has more light that you need to light macro. I usually use my SB-400 with an SC-17 cable if I need to use artificial light on such a subject. I think the most common way to light macro subjects with the camera handheld is holding the flash with your left hand, a bit in front of (i.e., closer to the lens), above, and to the left of the subject, pointing at the subject. Recall that cutting the distance between the flash and the subject in half will quadruple the light.

However, there is an issue using flash for macro work. The light must be far more diffused than any stobe I know of puts out. Thus, some sort of diffuser is required. Here I am still experimenting. I usually use natural light, sometimes coming through a window. If I am using a macro lens without VR, I will always have it on a tripod if I'm closer than 1:3 and usually have it on a tripod for all shooting.

--
Adrian
 
Hi Sofaspud, I think between the lenses you are considering you are spoilt for choice. Personally I only have experience of the Nikon 105 VR (and an earlier version of the Tamron 90mm).

I got the 105 when it came out and it was my first brand new Nikon lens. Whilst it does the job, I was disappointed at the time on the size and weight of it - especially as I only had a tiny D50 at the time. I now have the D300 and the size & weight are slightly better balanced but there's no denying this is a bulky heavy lens in this range.

As far as I can see, the size & weight is due to adding VR and AF-S to this lens. The latter is excellent, but for me VR doesn't make much difference to real macros close to 1:1 (and I now use a tripod wherever possible for anything near 1:1).

Your shooting style will help you decide but if you really want to start using extension tubes, working at 1:1 or greater, there's an argument that neither VR or even autofocus are essential for you.

I should add that I have been very pleased by the high quality of results the 105 VR produces when used as a normal mid-tele lens. Notwithstanding that, if I had to buy again, I'd look closely at the Tamron 90mm or the Sigma 150mm instead.

However I'm confused by the comment made by ARClark:
ARClark said:
Forget the 150 if your intention is to shoot macro. Like I said, you'll get a good shot once in a while, but ultimately, it's an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...
Unlike me, he has at least used one. However I have seen scores of really good macros shots taken with the latest Sigma 150mm. In addition I have seen some brilliant results with this lens when used as a telephoto.

Perhaps you need to spend some time trying these out where possible, so you can decide for yourself?

Finally you asked about your flash. Whilst I'd argue that a flash can really help certain types of macro shot (eg. chasing insects) a standard flash mounted on the camera is less help unless used with adapters or reflectors. Often the spread of light will be obscured by the lens itself.

The quality of my macros increased quite a bit when I started using flash, but I used dedicated macro flashes (a second hand SB-21 initially and now the R1C1).

Finally here's a hand-held with the 105 VR:



Here's one taken with the SB-21 flash:



--
Colin
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/celidh
 
the sigma 150 can certainly be used handheld. just as with any lens, you have to have shutter speed to support it or have flash be the primary source of light for exposure (freeze the subject). That being said, I prefer the tripod for most macro. And, for this, the sigma 150 is nice because it has a GREAT tripod ring.
These were handheld with the 150 on a D80.

Good luck with your decision. the best part about it is that you are choosing between two stellar lenses!!











--
Quinn
 
Sofaspud said:
1) I can see the advantages but what are the disadvantages in any of a longer working distance (Sigma 150mm vs Nikon 60mm)
Click to expand...
A shorter focal length can be easier hand held, especially on flying critters like a butterfly.
Sofaspud said:
2) In order to get 1:1 you have to be at the minmum distance I believe. What happens if you get closer than that- is the shot just not in focus?
Click to expand...
Yes
Sofaspud said:
3) If you use extention tubes do you lose image quality?
Click to expand...
Yes unless you get a special bellows lens. Extension tubes can do quite well, but a macro lens has floating internal elements that correct for a flatter field. If you really know what you're doing you can do good work with extension tubes.
Sofaspud said:
4) Everything I read talks about using tripods for Macro which I can understand but can you get good results handheld? I note VR is not useful at 1:1 or on a tripod.
Click to expand...
A tripod is great, but hand held works too with good technique. VR is useless in macro mode.
Sofaspud said:
5) I have an sb600 is that enough for Macro work (Camera is a D90)?
Click to expand...
The SB600 is good if you take it off the camera. Use it in slave mode with the D90 as commander. That flash doesn't tilt down like the SB800 or SB900. Us it on it's little stand or a small light stand.
Sofaspud said:
Finally I am considering either the Nikon 105VR or Sigma 150mm. I already have the 70-300mm VR so having a 105mm VR lens for non macro work is not a major seller. I will be mainly using the lens for macro work and ideally mostly handheld.
Click to expand...
I've owned the 60 f/2.8 AFD, the 60 AFS G, the 105 f/2.8 VR and the Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO macro. IMO, the 60 f/2.8 AFS G and the Sigma 150 f/2.8 are the better of those four. There is no problem holding the Sigma 150 hand held as macro or a good fast short telephoto in the wild as a walk around lens. I use it that way a lot.
Sofaspud said:
I am swayed to the sigma because as a pure macro lens (which is what I will be using my new purchase for) it seems to be the better of the two, have the greater working distance and a tripod collar if I do use a tripod. I am concerned however that I will not be able to use it handheld.
Click to expand...
I use mine hand held all the time and it's just fine, especially if you keep the shutter speed up or use a flash. If you want to use the flash on the camera, get a diffuser to get the light down on the subject. Don't worry. The heavier lens is pretty stable hand-held.
Sofaspud said:
Are there any sigma 150mm users that use it handheld?
Click to expand...
All the time without issue. When you use it on a tripod, consider investing in an inexpensive focusing rail. It makes life easy. Adorama or eBay sells them for a song. Cheap ones are ok.

I love either lens equally, my 60 f/2.8 AFS or my Sigma 150 f/2.8. I sometimes wonder if people really use these much when they complain about handholding or working distance. Sure the 60 has less working distance, but so what? Get a little closer. I don't shoot rattlesnake nostrils, but a bee or wasp is not a problem. I back off and crop a little. The shorter focal length is a dream if you're hand holding and moving fast. It's easier to stay with the critter.

The Sigma is big and heavy but that's an advantage to me when hand holding. This is often my favorite walk around lens in the wild. It's long enough to occasionally catch a close bird and short enough for some landscape. Its macro capability is hard to beat by anyone. This lens is sharp, flat and contrasty. I sold my Nikon 105 VR after using this for a couple of days. I'd heard good things about it, and they were right. This lens is a keeper. When I got my D700 it shined even brighter. The bokeh is incredible. It just doesn’t disappoint.

Had the Nikon 60 AFD or the 105 VR convinced, I'd have probably kept them as I like macro lenses for all kinds of use, not just macro, but they didn't. The 60 AFD just didn't shine at infinity and the 105 was just good but not great at everything. Had it had a tripod collar, I might have kept it. Maybe. I think the Tamron 90 or Sigma 105 is sharper.

Between the 60 AFS G and the Sigma 150, which would I choose if I had to have only one macro? Probably the 60 AFS but just by a hair, and just because it's one of what I call my magical glass like my 85 f/1.4 and 300 f/2.8. It just does special things.

Non-Macro shot with the 60 f/2.8 G.



Macro shot with the Sigma 150 f/2.8



Non-Macro with the Sigma 150 f/2.8 (shot of a thief with a supposedly squirrel proof bird feeder)



--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile
 
oldhouse said:
the sigma 150 can certainly be used handheld. just as with any lens, you have to have shutter speed to support it or have flash be the primary source of light for exposure (freeze the subject). That being said, I prefer the tripod for most macro. And, for this, the sigma 150 is nice because it has a GREAT tripod ring.
These were handheld with the 150 on a D80.

Good luck with your decision. the best part about it is that you are choosing between two stellar lenses!!

Click to expand...
Love that first one. All are good, but wow on that one. Thanks for sharing.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile
 
CMalsingh said:
CMalsingh said:
Forget the 150 if your intention is to shoot macro. Like I said, you'll get a good shot once in a while, but ultimately, it's an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Colin, thanks for pointing that out. I said that in the context of the OP wanting to shoot hand-held macro. Taken out of context, however, I would have revised the sentence to say:

"Forget the 150 if your intention is to shoot hand-held macro."

I do think it's an excellent macro lens (and medium telephoto). I just wouldn't plan on a doing a lot macro shooting without a tripod. Whenever I'm shooting serious macro, I'll mount my 55 f2.5 Ais on a tripod.
CMalsingh said:
--
Colin
-------------------
Click to expand...
Alan

--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
 
Thanks for all the responses.

This is such a hard decision, do I go for VR and AFS (105VR) or do I go for a tripod collar and greater working distance (150mm). I am sure they will both be excellent. Do many people into the macro world shoot a lot at 1:2 or 1:3 where the VR would be helpful or is everyone at 1:1.

I have a canon 500d on my 70-300mm and love close up which is why I want a macro lens. I am not sure what magnification that is giving me but I doubt it is near 1:1.

Would I be able to add my Cannon 500d onto either lens and is there a point if I could?
 
In my opinion, any serious macro work is done on a tripod. Sure, you can get good results hand held, but unless you are very steady, you will get very few keepers. Here is a tripod shot and notice the depth of field that is so shallow that focus must be exact or the shot is no good.



With the 150 and greater working distance you will need to be even more steady with a hand held shot since any side-to-side movement will be magnified. Another disadvantage of the 150 is that you may need to be too far away. At a recent orchid show I had to be 5 feet from the flower in order to capture the entire flower and that put me in the middle of the hallway.

If you plan to hand hold, then you may want to go with the 105.

--
Thanks,
Mark
 
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate them. That shot was awarded an honorable mention and placed in our local library's calander last year. I was very happy with it.
--
Quinn
 
Bmark said:
3) If you use extention tubes do you lose image quality?
Click to expand...
Depends... some lenses work better on tubes than others... thin air matters ;)

You can try your 70-300VR with a Canon 500D close-up filter, some folks have great results.
Bmark said:
If you plan to hand hold, then you may want to go with the 105.
Click to expand...
When ambient light is plenty you have a good chance of handheld keepers with the 150mm even when stopped down to f/16 (in order to get wide DOF). With less light you soon get into the compromise zone where you need to sacrifice aperture or ISO in order to have the shutter speed with a reasonable keeper probability, so a shorter FL fares better here. With even less light, you're soon out of luck even with the 60mm handheld.

Flash is a good workaround here, but you need to diffuse the light, and the diffuser needs to be larger at longer distances.

VR may also help a lot, but only with still subjects, and more for close-ups and little near 1:1 macro.

Mind that one should consider the actual focal length at 1:1 - the FL tends to shrink considerably with most macro lenses.

Regarding FL, you should consider what kind of perspective you like; tele lenses make a flatter perspective. And regarding background blur - with tele you get the background more blurred, while some seek wide-angle macros to include the ambient.
 
I do use the Sigma 150, but for true macro I do not hand hold the lens.

While the 150 is undeniably heavy, that's only part of the tale. I really don't think I'd be hand holding any lens at magnifications approaching 1:1. The issue isn't camera shake (which is what VR/OS/IS, depending on the manufacturer, addresses), in fact the issue is very shallow DoF. Minute (as in things as small as 1 mm) changes in the distance between the plane of the sensor and the subject can result in an out of focus image.

When you get up into the more usual close focus range, 1:3 or lower, image stabilization becomes about as useful as on any other lens. This would be the range for photographing larger flowers (like an open rose or a hibiscus) and having the whole flower and maybe some of the plant in the frame or smaller flowers and alot of the plant/surroundings in the frame. In this range, DoF is much more normal and a tiny change in the distance between the sensor and the subject isn't going to show up as a huge effect in the shot.

This all isn't intended to be an argument for or against any particular equipment. Rather just my take on what you're in for which ever you choose.

--D

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/florida_dan/
 
Sofaspud said:
Hi all.

I have a few beginner questions on Macro. I have seached the forums but cannot find the answers.

1) I can see the advantages but what are the disadvantages in any of a longer working distance (Sigma 150mm vs Nikon 60mm)

2) In order to get 1:1 you have to be at the minmum distance I believe. What happens if you get closer than that- is the shot just not in focus?

3) If you use extention tubes do you lose image quality?

4) Everything I read talks about using tripods for Macro which I can understand but can you get good results handheld? I note VR is not useful at 1:1 or on a tripod.

5) I have an sb600 is that enough for Macro work (Camera is a D90)?

Finally I am considering either the Nikon 105VR or Sigma 150mm. I already have the 70-300mm VR so having a 105mm VR lens for non macro work is not a major seller. I will be mainly using the lens for macro work and ideally mostly handheld.

I am swayed to the sigma because as a pure macro lens (which is what I will be using my new purchase for) it seems to be the better of the two, have the greater working distance and a tripod collar if I do use a tripod. I am concerned however that I will not be able to use it handheld.

Are there any sigma 150mm users that use it handheld?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Handheld Sigma 150/2.8 Macro with D200

 
Which lens depends very much on what you want to shoot, and under what conditions. What do you want to take close-ups of? I have the Sigma 150 (all the shots below were taken with it), and the Tamron 90. For me, to get decent shots of things like insects the Sigma gives a nice long working distance & I never use it handheld. Often, an insect will take one look at a nasty camera lens & swiftly depart so further away is better! It's OK on a monopod, but a tripod is best - I found the quality of my shots improved unbelievably with the tripod. I bought the Tamron for travel type macro as it is lighter, but I personally still need some sort of support to get really sharp photos. As others have pointed out, with close-up photography the DOF is very small making focussing pretty difficult unless you have a lot steadier hands than me!! I didn't get the 105VR as for me the VR wouldn't help with the type of things I photograph & the way I do it.

It is possible to start cheaply with a close-up filter which may help you decide what your subject preferences are before spending a lot of money on a lens. The Sigma is quite large & not a lightweight travel lens, but as others have stated you can't go too far wrong with any of the macro lenses. Good luck with whatever you get, macro photography is addictive & utterly fascinating!









 
I have only started playing around with macro shots. I have to agree with those that have said VR isn't really useful for macro work. You either have a fast enough shutter or you don't. The distances at which you are working make VR almost useless: the slightest movement on your part shifts the focus, even if the lens corrects for shake, it won't correct for focus. Which is a very good reason to use a tripod. Can you do it hand held, it would seem so be some of the shots posted! But I know I couldn't pull my macro shots off hand held! And if you are thinking of adding an extension tube, then you will most definitely need a tripod. Or more to the point, a good head. Kev's article suggests the Manfrotto 3-way. I personally love my Kirk BH-1, but the point is that you want a head that doesn't settle or move once you lock it down. Once you work with an extension tube and a cheap head, you will know what we mean.
 
[U] sem said:
You can try your 70-300VR with a Canon 500D close-up filter, some folks have great results.
Click to expand...
How can these filters work with either the 70-300mm or the 18-105mm which have a 67mm thread (or 62mm for 70-300 non-VR)? I have only seen these filters with 77, 72, 58, & 52mm threads. Did I miss one somewhere?

--
D-90; SB-600; 18-105mm; 70-300mm; 35mm f 1.8; MB-D80
Manfrotto 190XPROB - 496RC2 head[/U]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top