Micro this or micro that?

[Roland Vink]

Now about extension tubes v. lenses that focus to 1:1 on their own. The latter will have to throw out a lot of free working distance to get to 1:1. I consider using a PN-11 extension tube with my 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor an advantage as that lens gives the most free working distance of any other 105mm Micro-Nikkor. The PN-11 tube is out of production and prices aren't cheap anymore but if one is on a tight budget the Nikon M2 tube can be bought for a song. A pair of M2 tubes will offer 1:0.98 or 1.02x life size.

My feeling is that 1:1 on a macro lens is less important on DX format than FX. An FX lens at 1:1 will frame a 24x36mm area, a DX lens only needs to get to 2:3 to frame the same subject. Or put the other way, an DX lens will frame 16x24mm at 1:1, an FX lens will need 1.5x magnification to frame the same area.

Therefore, I don't regard the 1:2 magnification of the 105/4 micro as a serious disadvantage, 1:1 on this format is overfill for most purposes unless you are into shooting really small bugs and flowers. The magnification of the 105/4 can be extended easily using a 3T or 4T closeup lens, or using a PK-13 which gives quite a useful 1:4 - 3:4 macro range.

However, lack of metering with the D60 is a serious disadvantage. You will need to use an external light meter and take into account the loss of light due to extension. Or guess the exposure and then review the results on the LCD, adjust the exposure (by varying the shutter speed, ISO or aperture) and shoot again until you get the exposure right. This is only really practical for slow-paced shooting in controlled conditions, eg from a tripod with stable lighting.

The choice really depends on what you shoot. For casual closeups, the 40/2.8 will be a more convenient choice. However, the various 18-55 kit zooms all get to about 1:3 magnification, which is perfectly good for general closeups. If you have one of these lying about, I suggest trying this first.

If you want to get really close  - "The only thing I think about is how to take a photo as close as possible ..." - then the 40/2.8 will do it, but the working distance is really too short to be useful. The 105/4 gives you much more working distance, it's an excellent lens, but no metering.

So, neither of the options are ideal. Other options are:
- AFS DX 85/3.5 micro - similar to the 40/2.8 but with much longer working distance. Relatively affordable.
- AF 105/2.8 micro - will not AF with the D60 but will support metering. Relatively affordable on the used market.
- Upgrade to a D7000, D7100 or D7200 - these cameras will meter with AI lenses like the 105/4 micro, and have improved sensors compared to the D60

I know this is goes outside your original question, but sometimes it is useful to step back and look at other options first...

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Getting the manual 105/4 Micro. then have it chipped to work with the D60 is also an alternative.

I think many here forget that the D60 isn't graced with the best of viewfinders. Thus the ability to do AF in a pinch should be regarded as an additional asset.

[John Koerner]

I would question that swap.
You will need significant more extension to get your 300/2.8VR (MFD 2.2m - 0.16x) to 1:2 vs. my 300/4 (MFD 1.45m - 0.27x), if you ever reach it at all.

Well, it depends on your goals.

I do a lot of lizards, snakes, etc., and for animals like that, there are 100x more opportunities to use a 300mm than a 180mm.

When I see a butterfly, I don't necessarily need the exact mathematical figure of 1:2 if I use an extender

What I do know is the resolution, color, CA scores of the Nikon 300mm II are several notches above the Nikon macro lenses, so cropping an image from the 300mm still produces better results than full images at 1:2 from the 60mm.

If I need to go in closer than what the 300mm can do, and don't need VR or AF, then I use the Voightlander 125.

My curiosity, however, is how the Nikkor 200mm stacks up to the Voightlander 125, image-wise.

I like my Voightlander, but the lack of a tripod collar I find to be a major hindrance to many wildlife compositions. (When you're in a studio, you can adjust/compose all you want ... so you can get by without a tripod collar ... whereas, with wildlife, you have to adjust your camera to fit the reality you're dealt with ... and a tripod collar is an extremely valuable tool, which the Nikkor 200mm has, where the rest of the mentioned alternatives do not). And it is supposed to be an extremely-sharp lens.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Provided your camera is supported with a sturdy L-bracket, there is absolutely no need to have a tripod mount on the CV 125 itself. Besides, the lens is neither long nor heavy enough to warrant such support anyway.

Your comment makes me wonder if your tripod is up to the task.

As to the 200/4 ED-IF vs 125 CV: the 200 certainly is sharp, but lacks the wonderful bokeh quality of the 125. Plus the chromatic correction of the 125 is better as indicated by its being an APO lens.

The 200/4 Micro IF (non-ED) wins only on its buttery smooth focusing and long working distance vs the 125 CV. Optically speaking it is no match at all. But still sharp enough for most purposes provided you do a CA removal in the RAW processing work flow.

[David H. Hartman]

Dave, the inner barrel of 40/2.8 protrudes from the outer barrel when you focus at 1:1, so taking the hood off doesn't really extend the working distance.  Maybe around 1cm of gain.

With lenses that go to 1:1 on their own even a centimeter helps. I really prefer the old lenses that used an extension tube to get to 1:1.

Dave

---

In case this was missed the Nikon M2 tube is really inexpensive. Two of them will bring to 105/4.0 AI or AIS Micro-Nikkor to a fraction over life size. The Nikon M2 tube also fits cameras like the D300s and D800 as the back edge of the barrel is beveled and misses the meter coupling lever.

---

Flash metering before TTL: I used to setup a lens at the image ratio I wanted, say 1:2 and focus on the receptor of my flash meter. I'd pop an open flash and use a chart for the lens to correct for the effective aperture. Without changing the image ratio I could photograph all I wanted. If the subject was in focus the flash setting didn't change. This is quite easy and more accurate that TTL flash metering.

---

I hope the Ana returns and gives some more input on what sort of subjects she wants to photograph. If she as the 35-40mm focal length covered with other lenses for general photograph I'd lean to the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor. If she want to get to 1:1 M2 tubes can be had in excellent condition for as little as $3.00 (USD) while the PN-11 in excellent is about $90.00 (USD).

Dave

[John Koerner]

Provided your camera is supported with a sturdy L-bracket, there is absolutely no need to have a tripod mount on the CV 125 itself. Besides, the lens is neither long nor heavy enough to warrant such support anyway.

Your comment makes me wonder if your tripod is up to the task.

My tripod is as good as it gets.

Your comments make me wonder about your subject matter (inanimate objects) versus animals ...

I have an L-bracket, and these let you do perfectly-horizontal, and perfecetly-vertical, compositions ... but what about angles that are inbetween perfectly-vertical and perfectly-horizontal 

It's not just "the weight" which warrants a tripod-collar, it's the infinite-rotated positions, instantly available, that a tripod collar lets you achieve.

If I see a butterfly in a cockeyed, 35° position on a bent piece of grass ... neither perfectly-vertical, nor perfectly-horizontal, positions are going to get me what I want.

Worse, if my subject is highly-agitated, it may fly away in a second or two, so I don't have all day to pluck my camera off the tripod, flip it vertically, reattach, and re-compose my shot (with an L-bracket).

A tripod collar allows me to re-compose in a fraction of a second, compared to a cumbersome L-bracket, and I don't make a bunch of hand-movements either, which can scare away flighty subjects, which gives me no image at all.

As to the 200/4 ED-IF vs 125 CV: the 200 certainly is sharp, but lacks the wonderful bokeh quality of the 125. Plus the chromatic correction of the 125 is better as indicated by its being an APO lens.

Thanks for the perspective.

The 200/4 Micro IF (non-ED) wins only on its buttery smooth focusing and long working distance vs the 125 CV. Optically speaking it is no match at all. But still sharp enough for most purposes provided you do a CA removal in the RAW processing work flow.

Again, much appreciated, thank you.

I can live without the AF of the V-125 and can deal with the lack of reach also, because I really do enjoy its image quality.

However, the lack of a tripod collar is one thing I do miss immensely.

Again, it's not the "weight" of the lens, it's the positioning of it, composition-wise, immediately, that makes it so valuable on a wildlife macro lens.

If the V-125 had a tripod collar, it would be perfect IMO.

[Jakov Minić]

John, can't you tilt the head of your tripod to achieve the desired angle?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I've been shooting close-ups of nature, static or non-static, for many decades. I don't miss a tripod collar on the CV 125 and repeat that this is not a lens big enough to have a separate collar. Its focusing accuracy is set by the long focus throw of 630 degrees. If one should add a rotating collar to such a compact lens, the long focus throw would suffer as there is really no place available to put that collar without cutting down on the helicoid itself.

Having a tripod with maximum versatility makes for the better results in close-up photography. There is besides a wealth of difference in composition going from landscape to portrait mode, so recomposing the frame is mandatory anyway. Just flipping the camera over will not suffice.

[John Koerner]

John, can't you tilt the head of your tripod to achieve the desired angle?

Not from its original position.

If I set my camera/tripod combo perfectly ... but decide I want to tilt my camera and re-compose without a tripod collar ... if I am filling the frame with a macro shot, tilting my camera takes the subject out of my viewfinder. I now have to move my tripod.

It is a lot easier to re-compose/tilt by twisting a knob and using a tripod collar. Everything remains where it is, I just twist my wrist and I am ready again.

The collar has nothing to do with weight, it has to do with ease-of-composition, from where you stand.

Without the collar, you have to take your camera off, flip to the other side of the L-Bracket, move your tripod, etc.

It is simply slower and more cumbersome without a tripod collar.

Jack

[John Koerner]

I've been shooting close-ups of nature, static or non-static, for many decades. I don't miss a tripod collar on the CV 125 and repeat that this is not a lens big enough to have a separate collar. Its focusing accuracy is set by the long focus throw of 630 degrees. If one should add a rotating collar to such a compact lens, the long focus throw would suffer as there is really no place available to put that collar without cutting down on the helicoid itself.

Having a tripod with maximum versatility makes for the better results in close-up photography. There is besides a wealth of difference in composition going from landscape to portrait mode, so recomposing the frame is mandatory anyway. Just flipping the camera over will not suffice.

If the 125 were constructed to accommodate a collar, it would be ideal.

All of the "serious," highest-end macro lenses have them: the Nikkor 200, the Sigma 180, the Canon 180, and the Canon MP-E 65.

The other, "low-end" macro lenses (40-105) are designed to be hand-held ... which is why they don't need collars.

By contrast, the tripod-designed macro lenses all have collars ... not because of the weight, but for the reasons stated above in my prior post.

Cheers.

[simsurace]

The other, "low-end" macro lenses (40-105) are designed to be hand-held ...

I wonder why you think that. Did Nikon state that?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

If the 125 were constructed to accommodate a collar, it would be ideal.

All of the "serious," highest-end macro lenses have them: the Nikkor 200, the Sigma 180, the Canon 180, and the Canon MP-E 65.

The other, "low-end" macro lenses (40-105) are designed to be hand-held ... which is why they don't need collars.

By contrast, the tripod-designed macro lenses all have collars ... not because of the weight, but for the reasons stated above in my prior post.

Cheers.

This assertion is not in accordance with practice. To put it mildly.

Designating the 40-105 mm range of Micro-Nikkors "low-end" is about as far off the mark you can possibly get.

[Michael Erlewine]

The original poster mentions close-up photography, and the need to be close. Apparently we can’t have everything in a close-up/macro  lens, otherwise we would already have it and obviously we don’t.

Back in my “field-guide photography” years, when I was trying to shoot images that were field-guide quality “in the field,” I used just about every lens out there I could fit on a Nikon, and rather extensively at that, including the following lens:

No one has mentioned the Micro-Nikkor 70mm-180mm AF f/4.5-5.6 D, the only Micro-Nikkor that is a zoom, has auto-focus, and also has a rotating collar (300 degrees). For a beginning close-up photographer, the 70mm-180mm is very easy to use, zooms, is sharp, rotates, reaches almost to life-size at 180mm, has a 9-blade diaphragm and so on. Also, this lens maintains a constant aperture throughout its entire focus range.

And this lens, like the CV-125, has its own special draw or character that is almost film-like. No, I don’t use my copy of this lens these years, but I used to and I loved it. Only my growing sophistication forced me out of it. For a beginner, it is perfect IMO. Just my two-cents.

[Erik Lund]

You are aware of the price difference here, I hope,,, 

[Michael Erlewine]

You are aware of the price difference here, I hope,,, 

Are you addressing me or some earlier post? The 70mm-180mm Micro-Nikkor costs about $1,000, and we have been talking about lenses like the CV-125 that cost much more.