# Macro lens for Nikon D70



## ghostsword

Hi, I am starting on photography and got a second hand Nikon D70. Great camera, great photos and cheap to buy.

I am now looking for a lens to use for macro shots. 

Would you have any recommendation? I would like to spend no more than Â£200, if possible.


----------



## Stu Worrall

secondhand Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro would do fine on that camera luis


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks mate.. I will check it now .


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Luis,
        You might also consider a used copy of the Nikkor 105mm Micro f/2.8 AI-s. There ought to be plenty of these on fleabay. This is a manual focus lens but if you're using it for macro then this doesn't matter. If you want to use it for general shooting then you'll want the post 1990 version called the 105mm f/2.8 AF or even the AF-D, but these might break your budget.

Cheers,


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks Ceg, I will check all of these. 

The Tamron is about Â£350 @ Jessops (http://www.jessops.com/online.store/pro ... /show.html) brand new. Twice the price of the camera, the good thing is that I will be able to use it with any other Nikon I buy. If I find that photography is not for me I will just sell the kit and loose some money, but it will not break the bank.  

The Nikkor's are really out of my league.. I didn't know that lenses would be that expensive. 

The Nikon 400mm f/2.8G ED VR IF Nikkor AF, for example, Â£6519 ... 

Will look for the Nikkor 105 on ebay..


----------



## ceg4048

Yes, OEM lenses are always atrociously expensive, but the lens you mentioned is for proffessionals, whose income depend on their gear. Amateurs seldom have need for a 400mm f/2.8G ED VR IF. Furthermore, the price of this lens is only partially due to it's optical quality. This pro lens is made of metal and is almost bullet proof because it has to stand up to the rigours of a professional life. It will be in the jungle or the dessert or in a civil war being shot at, so it has to be tough. You can get 95% of this lens optical abilities in some of the lesser plastic lenses, even for example the 70-300mm AF G, which I paid $70  for new at a discount shop in NYC will work fine. But if I got attacked in NYC I couldn't use this lense to ward off the attackers. The Â£6000 lens could easily be brandished as a weapon against the marauders and will take great shots later that day. 

Check out what cheap plastic Nikon lenses are capable of in A New York Moment

You don't need to spend 6 grand. If you do decide to sell your gear, the fat that they are OEM means that you'll get more for them. So in terms of depreciation, I would always suggest OEM gear.

Cheers,


----------



## Dave Spencer

I have the AF-S micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8, which is optically beautiful when just used as straight forward prime lens, but it isn`t cheap. Ironically, I have hardly ever used it for macro photography, but manual focussing is usually the order of the day for this type of photography.

Try looking for a refurbished manual focus as Clive suggests, but remember, you should only ever need to buy a lens once, so make the right choice and invest wisely. All my lenses are Nikkor, bomb proof, and should last me a life time of photography.

Dave.


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks Dave and Clive.

I will then invest on a OEM lens, especially if the depreciation is less than others, and the fact that they are very well built and resistant. The good factor is if I take the hobby further I can use the lenses on another Nikon.

I have been playing with the D70 at home, and the results are really good, although still in Auto. 

Thank you.


----------



## ghostsword

Also, any book that you would recommend for a complete newbie to photography? After coming from the point and shoot world I even had to read the manual to see how could I disable the flash on the camera.  :?


----------



## mlgt

Just browse forums mate. Theres lots on the Nikon D70 body.


----------



## LondonDragon

The macro shots you see in my journals are all taken with the Tamron f2.8 90mm Macro lens


----------



## Dave Spencer

Try this, Luis. I haven`t read it, so don`t know if it is of any use.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70/ni ... -guide.pdf

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70/d7 ... .htm#index

I can only take Ken Rockwell in small doses.  

As for books on how to take photographs, I find them all more or less useless. It is a bit like buying a book on how to aquascape. It is looking at actual tanks in Aqua Journal etc. that will make you a better aquascaper, not reading about how to put substrate in, how to plant and so on. I feel photography is the same. Looking at the work of great photographers will teach how to take a photograph far more than reading reams and reams on ISO, f stop etc, just as looking at great aquascapes will make you a better aquascaper rather than reading about drop checkers. For good books on photography that are inspirational, I buy books on my favourite photographers such as HCB, Sebastiao Salgado etc.

Dave.


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks Dave,

Sebastiao Salgado is indeed something to look at, his work on the "Sem Terra" is inspirational.

My issue is that I got no idea whatsoever what the different dials on the camera does. Been looking at the manual, and it has helped a lot.  It sounds lame, but working with the camera has to be a kick in the backside out of my comfort zone.  

For example, it took me a while to understand that the lens I have with the camera only works when set up to 22, still don't know what the 22 is for, but unless it is on 22 and locked I see a Fee error on the display.  

Been also using Flickr for details on how the pics were taken, and that has helped to see the diferent effects aperture, contrast, etc, has. 

As the camera does not have a live view, I take a photo with separate settings, then see it on the pc. 

Coming from a point and shoot camera, the camera on Auto is pretty amazing, even being a 6mp, leading me to think that mp are overrated.

The Ken Rockwell guides are perfect.. Simple to follow.  

Thank You.


----------



## Mark Evans

ghostsword said:
			
		

> leading me to think that mp are overrated.



not if your doing prints up to A1 and above. A3+ for that matter  . For standard web work it's not so important


----------



## ceg4048

Live view it really what's overrated....

When you learn to see your world through a viewfinder you'll find that you'll take better photos.

Cheers,


----------



## ghostsword

saintly said:
			
		

> ghostsword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leading me to think that mp are overrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not if your doing prints up to A1 and above. A3+ for that matter  . For standard web work it's not so important
Click to expand...



 then this camera will last me until it dies..  No more than A4 for me..  Even that is too big, I think.


----------



## ghostsword

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Live view it really what's overrated....
> 
> When you learn to see your world through a viewfinder you'll find that you'll take better photos.
> 
> Cheers,



Thanks.. It will take time. When I got the camera I kept pointing and not seeing anything on the screen.. LOL, looked like a right wally. 

Must have been hard before digital, you only knew your picture came right when you developed the film.


----------



## ceg4048

ghostsword said:
			
		

> Must have been hard before digital, you only knew your picture came right when you developed the film.


Not as much as you might imagine. You knew your gear. You understood the photographic principles. You understood the characteristics of the film, what it was capable of and what it's weaknesses were. There were always disappointments but you simply took better pictures because you only had so many frames, so each one counted. Now you can just shoot willy nilly without a care, so less attention is paid to each shot because you can always delete and repeat. It's making the corrections to prints which were a pain. Much less fun generally than taking the shot.

Cheers,


----------



## theDiver

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Hi Luis,
> You might also consider a used copy of the Nikkor 105mm Micro f/2.8 AI-s. There ought to be plenty of these on fleabay. This is a manual focus lens but if you're using it for macro then this doesn't matter. If you want to use it for general shooting then you'll want the post 1990 version called the 105mm f/2.8 AF or even the AF-D, but these might break your budget.
> 
> Cheers,


Auto focus sure does matter with macro.

I am doing a lot of underwater photography with ny 60mm f/2.8 Nikon Lens. Trust me it sure helps.


----------



## tyrophagus

stuworrall said:
			
		

> secondhand Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro would do fine on that camera luis



I 2nd this recommendation.  I bought this lens for my D70 a few years ago.  It's an awesome lens, absolutely pin sharp and very useful for general photography not just macro.  When I bought my D70 (now retired) it came with the kit lens.  I could not believe the improvement in image quality I saw when I started using this lens rather than the kit lens.  I think it's good value.


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks.. I will check the lenses out. On ebay there is always some being sold. 

I got my D70 with a Nikon 35-80 F4-5.6D, cheap lens, but for a newbie such as me it is perfect.  

So the fight is between the Tamron 90mm and the Nikon 105mm.

Now silly question. The larger the mm the more it zooms into, right? 

So a camera that is between 35mm and 130mm would zoom much further than a 105mm?


----------



## theDiver

If you go for the Nikon 105mm go for the new VR version.

Here is an article describing the new 105mm VR and the Tamron 90mm
http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm


----------



## ghostsword

theDiver said:
			
		

> If you go for the Nikon 105mm go for the new VR version.
> 
> Here is an article describing the new 105mm VR and the Tamron 90mm
> http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm



Fantastic article, thanks for that. 

" if you can give up the VR and AF-S and need to save money, the Tamron is the lens to get."

I need to save money, but VR and AF-S are indeed cool, and this is lens that would be kept for a while. I will just save some more and get something good.

The pic of the bee is indeed the sort of pictures I would like to take. There is a user on the forum that has taken the most amazing pictures of mosses, and was that that inspired me to look at macro photography. 

Cheers,
Luis


----------



## theDiver

I am sure you make the right decision 

Some day I am going to buy the 105mm VR lense as well, for my underwater photography,
So i can get even closer to the critters in the water, like this Christmas Tree Work:
http://www.dykkeren.dk/Galleriet/Red%20 ... -Edit.html


----------



## ceg4048

Luis, I thought you said your budget was around Â£200?

There is not much difference optically between a new Â£900 105 VR and the much lower price used 105 units.

Again, if your main objective is macro photography then a feature such as auto focus is much less important. You turn off AF when shooting macro because the focusing distances are so very short. AF has no idea where you want the focus point. VR is nice but if you have the camera mounted on a tripod, which you typically do for serious macro work then VR has to be turned off. Hand held macro shots are a different story as the VR will help to reduce blurring due to camera shake.

So most people have other lenses that cover the focal range of a dedicated macro lens and only occasionally use the maco lens for general shooting. If most of your shooting will be general shooting then it's probably better to get a general lens that has some macro ability.

If you're deciding whether to get the Tamron vs the Nikon, I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to tell the difference in your photos which lens the subject was taken with. The issue is one of economics and ergonomics. The feel of the lens and how it handles are often much more important than the differences in optical quality. Does the focus drift once set? How smooth is it to turn the focus ring? Is there a Depth-of-Feel preview so you can check what areas of the frame have acceptable focus? What is the minimum focus distance? Does the lens barrel extend during focusing? Are the lens distortions in the images easy to correct?

These are the more important questions than what marketing features the manufacture has come up with to separate you from your money and which often don't help you to take better pictures.



			
				ghostsword said:
			
		

> Now silly question. The larger the mm the more it zooms into, right?
> 
> So a camera that is between 35mm and 130mm would zoom much further than a 105mm?


A zoom lens is a lens with multiple focal distances. Neither of these lenses can zoom as they each have a fixed focal length. The mm values (called the Focal Length) describe the angle of view, or the "perspective" of the lens. The 35-80 lens is a zoom lens because it has multiple focal distances. A low number means that the lens sees a wider field of view. The larger the number the narrower the field of view. In effect, the focal length of the lens gives an indication of the magnification that will be produced. So a 300mm lens has a much higher magnification than a 35mm lens. It can resolve objects 10X further away. If you set you zoom lens to the 50mm mark it will see an angle of view (or a perspective of the world) similar to what humans see with our naked eye. This is why a 50mm lens is often referred to as a "normal" lens. Higher numbers are called "telephoto".

So your "cheap lens" has the ability to zoom from a wide angle perspective to telephoto with minimal distortion. A feat unheard of 50 years ago.

Cheers,


----------



## theDiver

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Again, if your main objective is macro photography then a feature such as auto focus is much less important.


Sorry you are wrong.



> You turn off AF when shooting macro because the focusing distances are so very short.


No you don't.



> AF has no idea where you want the focus point.



All except the cheapest dSLR's have a quite good understanding of where the focus point is, you can even move the focus point.



> VR is nice but if you have the camera mounted on a tripod, which you typically do for serious macro work then VR has to be turned off.


Sorry but you are wrong again.

A lot of serious macro work is done with the camera in your hand, maybe not for tank shot's but it sounds like he is going to take pictures of bee's and other insects as well. Often you have no time moving the tripod, aligning everything. There you walk around with you camera and shoot, when you have the chance.

Of course he can just buy the old lense, but then he lacks all the good features of the new VR version, and most people get a camera+lense to handle one situation, and suddenly they want to shoot in other situations as well. And trust me it sucks to have bought a cheap lense, because you thought you would only need it for 1 time of job, and then have to get the better one afterward.


----------



## ceg4048

Well how did people take macro shots before VR and AF were invented? The photographer takes the picture, not the camera. AF often gets in the way. The focus markers get in the way. Why would you need VR on a tripod mount? VR lenses instruct to turn the feature off when tripod mounted.

I use old lenses and I don't have any difficulties in that regard. I don't miss any of the "great features". I agree that hand held macro shots a a little easier using VR, but not enough to blow your budget. Use the money saved to get a small monopod (or even use a rock or your camera bag) and do some planning before you go out shooting.

Learn how to become a better photographer and how to get the best from the gear you have and maybe things won't suck all the time. That way you get to keep your hard earned money and still get great shots.

Cheers,


----------



## theDiver

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Well how did people take macro shots before VR and AF were invented?


Let me guess, you also still use the old time film, that need to be send in for printing and all that. 

Just because you CAN take pictures without AF and/or VR doesn't mean you have to.
It is called development.



> The photographer takes the picture, not the camera.


Thats true, but why not use the features that makes things easier.



> AF often gets in the way.


Wrong again.



> The focus markers get in the way.


And wrong again.



> Why would you need VR on a tripod mount? VR lenses instruct to turn the feature off when tripod mounted.


Where do i say you must use VR on a tripod, i said often when doing macro you don't have a tripod.
Okay if you only shot macro shots of dead non moving things, then sure, use your macro and your manual focus.
But for everybody else, who take pictures of alive and moving things, we love VR and AF.



> I use old lenses and I don't have any difficulties in that regard.


I use new lenses, and don't have any difficulties either. I can actually turn of AF if i want to, can you turn on AF?
Correct i have more possibilities than you have.



> I don't miss any of the "great features".


Which might be due to the fact, you already have spend money on old lenses.

The person starting this thread, is looking for a lense, not replacing a lense. Therefore he should not buy old stuff, but rather get new technology which has a lot more possibilities.



> I agree that hand held macro shots a a little easier using VR, but not enough to blow your budget.


A little easier, have you ever tried the 105mm VR? It is a lot more than 'a little easier'.



> Use the money saved to get a small monopod (or even use a rock or your camera bag) and do some planning before you go out shooting.





> Learn how to become a better photographer and how to get the best from the gear you have and maybe things won't suck all the time.


And again with better gear, you can get even better shots.

Or do you really think an old Nikon D40 can take as good pictures as maybe the newer Nikon D3000?
Nev technology gives better focus, better speed, better resolution, lot better reduces ISO noise. The lenses have better glass, better autofocus, faster focus, less flare, and the possibility to go manual if you care to. The older lenses without AF don't have the possibility to turn on the AF.

Sure if money is the problem, go buy some cheaper stuff, but there is a good chance you will regret is later (but won't admit it in public).

I for one thing love my Prof. Nikon 28-70 mm f/2.8 and my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 they cost a fortune, but are worth every penny.

p.s. I have turned of notification on this thread, because we are into details now, that does not really help the person asking the questions. It is up to him, if he wants good new equipment with a lot of possibilities, or some older equipment, with a lot less possibilities.


----------



## ghostsword

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Luis, I thought you said your budget was around Â£200?



I have seen some VR lenses on ebay for less than Â£300. I can save a little bit more.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> There is not much difference optically between a new Â£900 105 VR and the much lower price used 105 units.



This is good to know. 



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Again, if your main objective is macro photography then a feature such as auto focus is much less important. You turn off AF when shooting macro because the focusing distances are so very short. AF has no idea where you want the focus point. VR is nice but if you have the camera mounted on a tripod, which you typically do for serious macro work then VR has to be turned off. Hand held macro shots are a different story as the VR will help to reduce blurring due to camera shake.



The macro will be taken with a tripod, probably VR is overkill for what I want.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> If you're deciding whether to get the Tamron vs the Nikon, I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to tell the difference in your photos which lens the subject was taken with. The issue is one of economics and ergonomics. The feel of the lens and how it handles are often much more important than the differences in optical quality. Does the focus drift once set? How smooth is it to turn the focus ring? Is there a Depth-of-Feel preview so you can check what areas of the frame have acceptable focus? What is the minimum focus distance? Does the lens barrel extend during focusing? Are the lens distortions in the images easy to correct?



So the difference between the two lenses is just build quality? The camera will be used on a variety of conditions, on field trips and mountain walks, need to be strong. Most important is that it should last me even if I buy another camera.



			
				ghostsword said:
			
		

> Now silly question. The larger the mm the more it zooms into, right?
> 
> So a camera that is between 35mm and 130mm would zoom much further than a 105mm?





			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> A zoom lens is a lens with multiple focal distances. Neither of these lenses can zoom as they each have a fixed focal length.


 Ok, makes sense. The cheap lens for out and about, the 105mm for fixed focal lenght, and when in macro it is up to me to focus manualy on what I want to see.


----------



## ghostsword

theDiver said:
			
		

> ... good new equipment with a lot of possibilities, or some older equipment, with a lot less possibilities.



 I work on computers, and found out that new does not necessarily means better..  

If the optics are very much the same, with the VR costing close to Â£900, the savings are massive, especially for a newbie like me that even had to read the manual to find out how to switch off the flash on the D70. 

So far the 105 Nikon seems the best suited for my needs. I may go to a photography shop in London and see if I can try it, there are a couple of second hand shops in Totenham Court Road.

A Gorila Pod and some meat will be used to take a pic of my first fly!


----------



## George Farmer

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Live view it really what's overrated....
> 
> When you learn to see your world through a viewfinder you'll find that you'll take better photos.
> 
> Cheers,


I agree with the second comment mate; folk shouldn't rely on Live VIew for most situations. 

However, I actually use Live View a lot for full-tank shots and find it very useful indeed.

Hopefully for the benefit of others I will explain myself in more detail...

I'll have my camera on a tripod perfectly square to the tank, and select as small an aperture as I can get away with, without compromising shutter speed or ISO.  Typically with my camera and full aquarium lighting this is around f/8 to f/11 for most circumstances.

Then I'll manually focus on a spot right at the front of the tank.  To get the focus absolutely spot on I use Live View with 10x magnification.  Auto-focus is not so accurate in these situations, in my experience, and to manually focus without the 10x Live View it would involve more trial and error. 

Because I have a decent depth of field almost everything behind to spot I've focused on is nicely in focus.  

I will also preview the exposure using Live View.  Then I can manually adjust the white balance in Live View to ensure I know almost exactly how it'll appear on my computer.  Obviously any minor adjustments can be made in software but the majority of the time it's spot on.  Actually my 50D's screen is superb in terms of accuracy and it's saved me countless hours in needlessly keeping unwanted frames.

Also for handheld macros, especially of moving fish in big tanks where a tripod is almost redundant, I find auto-focus very useful.

I honestly don't think I would get as many useable shots without these aids.  But I don't think that makes me any worse a photographer.  Using the technology to your advantage, but understanding the basics and not relying it; that's my philosophy.


----------



## ghostsword

Would a camera that goes from 18-105mm such as the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, be as good for macro as a camera that has fixed focal lenght of 105mm? 

The price difference is quite big, but would the results be somewhat similar?


----------



## Stu Worrall

ghostsword said:
			
		

> Would a camera that goes from 18-105mm such as the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, be as good for macro as a camera that has fixed focal lenght of 105mm?
> 
> The price difference is quite big, but would the results be somewhat similar?


nope. they wont focus as close as the macro will


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks, will need to save for a couple of months to get a lens that will do what I want.


----------



## tyrophagus

theDiver said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VR is nice but if you have the camera mounted on a tripod, which you typically do for serious macro work then VR has to be turned off.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you are wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sorry Diver but you are wrong and ceg4048 is correct regarding VR and tripods.  VR is designed for handheld photography, not for tripods.  Your images will have reduced sharpness if you leave VR on.  Always turn VR off when your camera is mounted on a tripod or it will affect image quality.


----------



## Stu Worrall

tyrophagus said:
			
		

> Sorry Diver but you are wrong and ceg4048 is correct regarding VR and tripods. VR is designed for handheld photography, not for tripods. Your images will have reduced sharpness if you leave VR on. Always turn VR off when your camera is mounted on a tripod or it will affect image quality.



not if you are panning as you would select mode 2 on a canon IS lens mounted on a tripod or monopod (vertical damping only)  Not sure if nikons do this tho


----------



## ceg4048

Only on their newer Â£2000 and up lenses. Not on the macro lens in question.

Quote from Thom Hogans review of the latest version of the Â£600 105mm f/2.8G ED IF AF-S VR 


> The exact words in the Nikon manual say "As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x [sic], the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease." In other literature, Nikon has flat out said to turn off VR for macro use. What's the real answer? The manual is correct, basically. The closer you focus, the less VR has an impact on the final image. At 1:1 (the closest focus distance), it may not impart any benefit (it didn't seem to in the testing conditions I could create). So do you turn VR off when working in macro? If you're pressed up towards the limits of focus, I'd say yes--you're wasting battery life and potentially making it more difficult to hit a focus point. But if you're focused out beyond two or three feet (~.7m+), it probably makes sense to leave it on, as you'll get some benefit (though not the four stops Nikon claims for the system unless you're focusing far further out into the scene).



Cheers,


----------



## Mark Evans

theDiver said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if your main objective is macro photography then a feature such as auto focus is much less important.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you are wrong.
Click to expand...


he's not mate. focusing at close distances is a pain with AF. all my macro stuff is done on a tripod. even the stuff with my 70-300. I've missed more shots when relying on AF than with out. 

if it were the case, why doesn't the 65 MP-E have a focusing ring?...it's all manual.

AF tends to hunt more at full stretch. even if you change the focusing spot, then it becomes even more problematic. on my 135mmf2 L it preforms worse on any other focusing spot other than that one in the middle. 

George swung me around the MF way of focusing.


----------



## Dave Spencer

I did some macro work for my company, photographing blade damage on a gas turbine. Even with a tripod and still target, MF was the best method.






We all clearly have different methods that work for us, and are prepared to change the way we operate to meet the specific situation, whether it be MFor AF. An absolute definite for me is to switch VR off when using a tripod in all circumstances, when using a macro lens for macro work.

Dave.


----------



## George Farmer

Like Dave mentions, different techniques for different circumstances.

I think for real close-up stuff that still or slow moving then MF is more useful.

For a moving 'targets' i.e. fish, I think AF is your best bet.  I tend to select an AF point, then line it up with the fish's eye, then fire away.  It's how I got this shot for instance.  Try capturing a fast moving fish like this green chromis by focusing manually so close up and you're a better man than me!


----------



## Mark Evans

This is till to date, the hardest shot i've ever taken. no autofocus, shallow depth of field...nightmare.


----------



## John Starkey

Thats still a cracking shot mark,
regards,
john.


----------



## George Farmer

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Try capturing a fast moving fish like this green chromis by focusing manually so close up and you're a better man than me!


I wondered if Mark would step forward with a shot like that...   Fair play! D


----------



## Mark Evans

George Farmer said:
			
		

> I wondered if Mark would step forward with a shot like that... Fair play! D



 trust me George, it took well over 60 shots to get it!


----------



## ceg4048

Wow, spectacular mate.     That's what I'm talking about. This is art and the artist takes the picture, not the gear. The gear has to enable the artist and then it has to get out of the way.

Cheers,


----------



## Mark Evans

Cheers Clive. 

photographing fish, when so damn close to the subject is tough, then when you don't have a focusing ring, and have to move the camera, it's even tougher. I've found an easy way around the latter problem though.


----------



## ceg4048

Tell me, Tell me mate! Is it using super small apertures?

Cheers,


----------



## Mark Evans

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Is it using super small apertures?



No mate, but I can see where your coming from. I know this a 'nikon' thread, but I'll tell you about the canon 65MP-E

The lens magnify s up to 5x and to get from 1 through to 5 x magnification you have to turn the barrel like any other zoom lens. Now the difference with this lens is there's no focusing barrel! When I first started using it, I went on many forums investigating this lens, and many pros were making tables that moved, to bring close or make further the subject to get it into focus. ...still with me?...  

now all i could do was move the tripod to get the same effect. hand held with this thing is impossible...almost.

what I discovered was, when I passed through the different focal/magnifications the subject came into focus...unlike other zoom lenses'.So i figured, if I get the subject roughly (within mm on this bad boy, which is actually like yards!) I could then use the barrel to my advantage, thus turning the barrel into a accurate focusing ring!  BINGO!   

I think I can make a HD vid, showing what i mean. what you see in the vid would be how I worked the lens.    give me a while.


----------



## ghostsword

I got a new lens (second hand) for my Nikon D70, a Nikon 28-105mm F3.5-4.5D that has a macro mode. Obviously it is not as good as a 105mm fixed lens, but it was cheap and the macro mode goes to 1:2, so far so good. 

I took some pics of my fish, and was shocked at how dirty my glass was.. 







Still need to save enough for a fixed lens, keep seeing the 105mm 2.5 for sale, but as Clive recommended the 105mm 2.8 I am still trying to find one under £300. 

However the results with the new lens are very good, for me that is.


----------



## ghostsword

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Hi Luis,
> You might also consider a used copy of the Nikkor 105mm Micro f/2.8 AI-s. There ought to be plenty of these on fleabay. This is a manual focus lens but if you're using it for macro then this doesn't matter. If you want to use it for general shooting then you'll want the post 1990 version called the 105mm f/2.8 AF or even the AF-D, but these might break your budget.
> 
> Cheers,



Took me a while but managed to get one 105mm Micro f/2.8 AI-s with a one year warranty for £180 delivered.  Can't wait to use it.. 

Thanks for the advice !!


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Luis,
           The 105mm f/2.5 is actually not a macro lens  but instead just a regular 105mm prime lens, so the optical design is a lot different than the f2.8.

I think I really screwed up though, because on a D70 I think that the AI-s lenses do not provide metering. I was reading D70 but was thinking D700, which meters perfectly with AI-s lenses.

There are a couple of ways to compensate for this deficiency;
1. The cheap way is to use the 105mm exposure setting setting on your zoom and then set those values manually as you swap the lens over.

2. The less cheap way is to use an external light meter, which you probably don't have. It can be either a regular hand held meter, such as any of the ones you see on ebay hand held meters or a mini meter that mounts on your flash hot shoe and gives you the values to set. Check out Gossen Digisix

I do apologize mate. If I had realized that you had already gotten the zoom I would have advise to just stick with that, because it's excellent optically and has very similar macro range, but I missed your last post.

Cheers,


----------



## ghostsword

no issue mate. I got the 2.8, not the 2.5. Also, will try the lens, and if it does not do what I want then I will just sell it again, probably loose small money on it, but no big issue. 

Will get a light meter, will need one anyway if I want to get better at this malarkey of photography..  

Your advice is greatly appreciated and welcome.

Cheers,
Luis


----------



## George Farmer

I've never seen the need for light meters with digital.  Experimentation is fun, and with digital, there's no waste!


----------



## ceg4048

You're right George. Because you can see the results immediately you can just fool around with the exposure settings until you get something you like. It's just a pain not having instant metering if the subject has changing light or if it's something dynamic where you only get one chance at the shot.

When I'm taking tank pictures I never use the meter because the lighting is always so bizarre. I just set some values and look at the results.

Cheers,


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks a lot guys, the advice is very welcome. The lens will be used for the large part on macro photos, either plants, bugs, whatever takes my fancy, and I am used to play with the exposure mode. As it is digital, as George says, I take a couple of photos with diferent exposures, and then choose what come out better, or what looks better to me. 

I am not a pro, just like to have fun with it.  

Thanks once again.


----------



## George Farmer

I'm so familiar with shooting my aquariums now I know roughly what settings I need to dial in, in manual mode, of course.

I recommend shooting manual as much as possible to really get to grips with understanding the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO.  When you get more experienced you can second guess the settings without metering, just based your perception of the lighting situation.  Like all things, practice makes "perfect".


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks George,

I have been shooting manual for a while now, and still trying to get to grips with how the settings all work. Will get there in the end.  

Practice makes perfect, and it is amazing how old camera and lenses can take such amazing pics.


----------



## LondonDragon

ghostsword said:
			
		

> Practice makes perfect, and it is amazing how old camera and lenses can take such amazing pics.


One of the reasons I have not upgraded yet, for what I need the old Konica does the job  I am even using more often the compact camera now! So even less reason to upgrade it!


----------



## ghostsword

I could not go back to compact after trying the SLR..  The compacts take great pictures outside, but indoors the slr is really great. Maybe I just had cheap compacts..  

Would like to get a G10, for day to day shooting, but will need to wait some more until the prices drop to my range.


----------



## LondonDragon

Check my new journal, all photos taken with the TZ7


----------



## ghostsword

Got the lens at home and tried it. 

Now this is a hard lens to work with, at least for a newbie like me. On A and S it was just showing F--, so after trying all the settings it only works on M. A pro would have known but a newbie like me only with trial and error. 

Have not figured out how to get it right, I am getting used to focusing on moving objects, but took some photos already. 

The ladybird was found on top of the emersed riccia, it was later placed on the garden:











Ludwigia Arcuata trying to grow out of the water:


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Luis,
            Remember we just discussed this issue? There is no exposure metering with this lens on a D70. You have to meter manually. There is no other choice. "A"= full auto and "S"= shutter priority. These are useless with this camera/lens combination.

That means flash modes also have to be manual. Are you using the built in flash or a separate hot shoe mounted flash? Or maybe even a studio light/torch? Shooting macro with the built-in flash is difficult because you cannot get even coverage at close working distances.

Also, you need to stop down all the way if you can.

The shots all look very blurry. Were these hand held? I couldn't get any exposure data from my browser. Were these at closest focusing distances?

It's easier to practice getting the hang of things with easier (if boring) still subjects like shiny penny on a table or something like that.

Cheers,


----------



## ghostsword

Thanks mate.

The lens is fab, I am having fun with it, but all is manual, no help on anything..  So when something comes right it is spectacular and a really good feeling. 

The lens is only on Manual, the flash does not work with it, or I have not figure out how to get it to shoot, but using 
the aperture ring I can let more or less light enter the camera, meaning that the pics will be darker or lighter. 

Also, I shot this at 1/10 exposure, I need to use faster shutter speeds. The Ladybird was on the move and was on top of a riccia island above a Koralia, plus with the handheld shake, it was a miracle that something came out. 

The pic data is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/ghostsword ... 3270/meta/

I will practice and practice, and as this is not a lens that I can just take out and shoot with, I will need to dedicate time to it. 

I think that if I can shoot with this lens I will be able to shoot with anything else on the market.  

Feels like a 911RS from 1973, great looks, great results, but no ABS or TC.


----------



## ghostsword

ghostsword said:
			
		

> Thanks mate.
> 
> The lens is only on Manual, the flash does not work with it, or I have not figure out how to get it to shoot, but using
> the aperture ring I can let more or less light enter the camera, meaning that the pics will be darker or lighter.



Actually, it was my fault that the flash did not worked, there is another setting on the menu that places the flash as auto, or ttl, it was ttl. Once I setup the flash to auto it worked fine. 

It is so sad being a newbie at this.   :!:


----------



## ceg4048

Yeah, you absolutely, positively want to avoid using such long shutter speeds with moving subjects and especially when shooting hand held. The Exif data output by the camera is not valid with this lens because the lens does not have central processing unit (CPU) like your zoom does. There is no way for the lens to communicate with this camera. That's why you have no metering.

I suggest that you use a higher ISO, like 400 or higher. This gives you a higher light sensitivity.
Set an aperture to at least f/8 and a speed of at least 1/30th of a second.

The D70 also has something called "Flash Exposure Compensation". What this means basically is that the duration  that the flash illuminated is longer, or the intensity is stronger, or both when you select a compensation in the "+" direction. Conversely, when you select in the "-" direction the intensity is weaker. The same button that you use to pop the flash up is what you need to press while at the same time turning the dial. You'll see a little "+/- lightning bolt" icon in the finder and on the top LCD. 

Using a higher shutter speed permits less light and this is exacerbated by using a smaller aperture, so adding more flash (+) "compensates" for this. If your pictures get washed out when you use the flash then that means you're admitting too much light and you need to turn the dial the other way in the "-" direction.

Cheers,


----------



## ghostsword

Fantastic information, much appreciated. I will keep playing with it until I get it right, but your advice has taken days if not weeks out of the exercise. 

Many thanks


----------

