Macro zoom lens recommendation wanted

I'm going blind reading lens specs.

Currently using the Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 macro zooms. I'm satisfied with the image quality and the FF 1:1.4 macro equivalent on a DX body. However the focal length is too short.

The Nikon 70-180 macro is a fraud. With lens breathing it is actually a 70mm when focused up close at the 180 setting.

Thought about adding the 1.4TC but the lenses I'm using are not likely to deliver particularly good optical quality with the TC.

Another option is the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4TC as that lens has only 2% focus breathing. But I really don't want to spend that much and the magnification is lower than its like.

It seems that the most practical solution is to forget finding a zoom but it would be nice if there was something around 50-150 that focused down to 1:2 like the two Nikon lenses currently in use.

I don't care about weight as 90+% of my shooting is on a tripod. F/5.6 is fast enough.

Suggestions?

Thanks,
Bill

When I saw thread title, I immidiatly thought of the fine 70-180mm, but since you regard it being a fraud... never mind.

But for others, here's Thom's review http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm

TwoMetreBill said:

I'm going blind reading lens specs.

Currently using the Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 macro zooms. I'm satisfied with the image quality and the FF 1:1.4 macro equivalent on a DX body.

Click to expand...

Putting a lens on a DX body doesn't change its maximum reproduction ratio - those two lenses still get to 1:2, not 1:1.4. For a subject 20mm across, its image will be 10mm across whether the lens is on an FX or a DX camera.

TwoMetreBill said:

I'm going blind reading lens specs.

Currently using the Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 macro zooms. I'm satisfied with the image quality and the FF 1:1.4 macro equivalent on a DX body. However the focal length is too short.

The Nikon 70-180 macro is a fraud. With lens breathing it is actually a 70mm when focused up close at the 180 setting.

Thought about adding the 1.4TC but the lenses I'm using are not likely to deliver particularly good optical quality with the TC.

Another option is the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4TC as that lens has only 2% focus breathing. But I really don't want to spend that much and the magnification is lower than its like.

It seems that the most practical solution is to forget finding a zoom but it would be nice if there was something around 50-150 that focused down to 1:2 like the two Nikon lenses currently in use.

I don't care about weight as 90+% of my shooting is on a tripod. F/5.6 is fast enough.

Suggestions?

Thanks,
Bill

Click to expand...

Why do you need ''macro'' zoom lens? Even those wanna-be ''macro'' zoom lenses are always used at it's longest focal length. So why don't you get decent prime lens?

briantilley said:

TwoMetreBill said:

I'm going blind reading lens specs.

Currently using the Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 macro zooms. I'm satisfied with the image quality and the FF 1:1.4 macro equivalent on a DX body.

Click to expand...

Putting a lens on a DX body doesn't change its maximum reproduction ratio

Click to expand...

No one said it does. OP said it's the FF 1:1.4 equivalent, which holds true.

briantilley said:

those two lenses still get to 1:2, not 1:1.4. For a subject 20mm across, its image will be 10mm across whether the lens is on an FX or a DX camera.

Click to expand...

But on DX body subject's image is magnified 1.5X

On FF 20mm subject at 1:2 reproduction ratio fills 28% of the frame

On DX 20mm subject at 1:2 reproduction ratio fills 42% of the frame.

On FF 20mm subject at 1:1.4 reproduction ratio fills 40% of the frame.

TwoMetreBill said:

I'm going blind reading lens specs.

Currently using the Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 macro zooms. I'm satisfied with the image quality and the FF 1:1.4 macro equivalent on a DX body. However the focal length is too short.

The Nikon 70-180 macro is a fraud. With lens breathing it is actually a 70mm when focused up close at the 180 setting.

Thought about adding the 1.4TC but the lenses I'm using are not likely to deliver particularly good optical quality with the TC.

Another option is the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4TC as that lens has only 2% focus breathing. But I really don't want to spend that much and the magnification is lower than its like.

It seems that the most practical solution is to forget finding a zoom but it would be nice if there was something around 50-150 that focused down to 1:2 like the two Nikon lenses currently in use.

I don't care about weight as 90+% of my shooting is on a tripod. F/5.6 is fast enough.

Suggestions?

Thanks,
Bill

Click to expand...

Hi Bill

The 70-180 has breathing, true, but has excellent image quality and built like a tank. I used mine for 10 years before trading it. Zooming sounds great on paper, but I eventually gravitated to fixed-focal length "true" macro lenses. However, compared to the alternatives you mention, I would take the 70-180 any day. Add a close-up filter or extension tube and it might be all you ever need.

You did not mention what you shoot, and what other lenses you already have. It is usually possible to get great macro shots from many existing lenses in a photographer's bag paired with extension tubes or close-up filters. Otherwise, unless you have some very special use in mind, I would recommend forget the zoom and get a Nikon 105mm macro (current 'G' or older 'D' model). It is great for most types of macro photography. If you really need more focal length, consider Sigma and Tamron offer 150 and 180mm lenses and there's Nikon's 200. Also be aware the Nikon 200 and the 70-180 are type "D" that is incompatible with some DX bodies that might require 'G' lenses.

Edit: if you need to change field of view, consider adding a focus slide with a quick release like the manfrotto focus slide. This is almost as convenient as having a zoom.

Sacred said:

briantilley said:

TwoMetreBill said:

I'm going blind reading lens specs.

Currently using the Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 macro zooms. I'm satisfied with the image quality and the FF 1:1.4 macro equivalent on a DX body.

Click to expand...

Putting a lens on a DX body doesn't change its maximum reproduction ratio

Click to expand...

No one said it does. OP said it's the FF 1:1.4 equivalent, which holds true.

Sacred said:

those two lenses still get to 1:2, not 1:1.4. For a subject 20mm across, its image will be 10mm across whether the lens is on an FX or a DX camera.

Click to expand...

But on DX body subject's image is magnified 1.5X

On FF 20mm subject at 1:2 reproduction ratio fills 28% of the frame

On DX 20mm subject at 1:2 reproduction ratio fills 42% of the frame.

On FF 20mm subject at 1:1.4 reproduction ratio fills 40% of the frame.

Click to expand...

That's all quite correct - but the reproduction ratio of a lens is a specific measure, denoting the size of the image on the sensor/film relative to the size of the subject. It doesn't vary with sensor size, in the same way that lens focal length does not actually change on a DX camera.

How much of the frame the image fills is a different measure.

But for most macro work, perhaps the most useful measure is something else again - the number of pixels the image covers

Sacred said:

Why do you need ''macro'' zoom lens?

Click to expand...

A zoom macro lens like the 70-180mm Nikkor can be very useful in some situations - it allows you to alter the framing of your subject without changing perspective by moving the camera.

Diswantsho said:

Also be aware the Nikon 200 and the 70-180 are type "D" that is incompatible with some DX bodies that might require 'G' lenses.

Click to expand...

Just for accuracy, it's the fact they are AF lenses without built in motor rather than AF-I / AF-S lenses which do have built in motors which restrict their use on the lower end DX bodies. "D" lenses will work fine: just without AF unless it's an AF-S (such as the AF-D 17-35 f/2.8D).

TwoMetreBill said:

The Nikon 70-180 macro is a fraud. With lens breathing it is actually a 70mm when focused up close at the 180 setting.

Click to expand...

Fraud is far too strong a word for it. There is no misrepresentation involved; the lens performs exactly as documented in the instruction sheet. The designers of this lens decided to retain the ability to focus to infinity and an f/5.6 maximum aperture throughout the focal range. While in my opinion those choices resulted in a lens that's neither "fish nor fowl," I don't think it's fair to take it to task for something it was never designed to be.

TwoMetreBill said:

Another option is the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4TC as that lens has only 2% focus breathing. But I really don't want to spend that much and the magnification is lower than its like.

Click to expand...

What is your budget, and what are your expectations for "particularly good optical quality?" In another thread, you claim that you used to shoot with a Sigma 180mm f/3.5. I still own that lens and I can't think of a zoom solution other than the 70-180mm that can even come close to that level of performance. I also fear that any 50-150mm design which focused from infinity down to 1:2 would face the same set of tradeoffs as the 70-180mm with the same "neither fish nor fowl" result.

But if, for the sake of expediency, you are willing to dial down your optical expectations a bit, adding a achromatic close-up lens to a modern zoom may be an option. When traveling, I use a 70-300mm VR in combination with a 67mm Marumi 330 DHG. While that combination creates a 60-150mm optical system with over 1x magnification, so-called IQ falls off steadily when you zoom out from a marked 200mm to 300mm.



OTOH, a $800 Tokina 70-200mm f/4 VCM-S with a Nikon 5T in combination would yield an approximately 65-150mm optical system with a maximum magnification in the 0.6x range. Once it's released, I also plan on trying the Marumi with the new Sigma 100-400mm.

Many thanks to all.

To answer a couple questions: I shoot mostly in the 1:2 thru about 1:10 range though occasionally down to 1:1 and out to infinity. Hence the reason my current lenses are so attractive.

I see no point in the Nikon zoom macro as it is only a 70mm lens at macro distances (way too short to be useful to me), expensive and optically inferior to any of the fixed focal length Sigma or Tamron macros.

There is an older Sigma around 70-200 (don't remember the exact range or f-stop) that goes down to 1:2) but I accidentally erased my notes. Might have been 70-300 but it didn't have a tripod mount. Back to searching the web.

So thanks again, I appreciate all the time you folks put in to help me.

TwoMetreBill said:

There is an older Sigma around 70-200 (don't remember the exact range or f-stop) that goes down to 1:2) but I accidentally erased my notes. Might have been 70-300 but it didn't have a tripod mount. Back to searching the web.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are thinking of this Tamron?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550953-REG/Tamron_AF017NII_700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html

You can read the reviews as well as I can on it, but I found it's "sister" lens, the 70-300mm f/4~5.6 ED Nikkor, to be unimpressive even by film standards. And that was before I bounced it off a sidewalk from a 5' height.
--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

Not considering any long lens that doesn't have a tripod mount so thanks anyway about the Tamron.

It is kind of funny but the Nikon 70-300 VR (not the prior model) at 200mm and f/8-11 is sharper than the 70-200 VRII. I did own the 70-300 VR and on a 12MP DX body (D300S), it was fine; just not a useful focal range for me.

Replaced it with the original 80-400 VR which was also fine on a D80, D200 and D300S but probably wouldn't recommend it for a 24MP body. If this lens only focused down to about 1:2, it would be ideal for my shooting.

This is the Sigma currently at the top of my list:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom
-the pre-OS model

TwoMetreBill said:

This is the Sigma currently at the top of my list:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom
-the pre-OS model

Click to expand...

Here's a review of that model which includes a critique of it's close-focus capabilities:

If you add a Canon 500D you'll get a useful range of magnifications, but I can't speak to the quality. Good luck with your decision!

"Focus shift on stopping down"

That is disturbing, means all my shots will be out of focus. Easily handled on a mirrorless camera by focusing magnified at the shooting aperture, not so much on a "clickety-clack" body.

I've tended to look at the Photozone.de reviews, thanks for reminding me that Dpreview has lens reviews too. Imaging-resource also has good lens reviews but they don't address focus shift or closeup deterioration either.