Prime & Macro

Leafer · 05/11/2012, 08:46 AM

I have a D90 with the kit lens and have been craving a prime lens for some time. I’d like to present some parameters and see if you think one lens would give me excellent results or do I need two.

• Consider Nikkor only
• Fast and sharpness highly valued
• Want to take flashless photos inside
• Will be taking lots of photos of fish and corals in my 150g (with and without a flash/strobe)

thanks for your comments

IslandCrow · 05/11/2012, 11:52 AM

There are a couple of advantages to prime lenses, which may fall in line with what you're wanting. First, you can often find a prime lens with a wider aperture than an equivalent zoom lens. That's going to help out quite a bit with your low light photography. Just realize that the trade off is that you're going to lose depth of field. The second advantage is the cost. For instance, my 50mm f/1.4 cost me around $400, whereas a similar quality zoom lens that covers the 50mm range can cost you up to $1000 more.

As far as tank shots specifically, a macro lens is generally going to be your best bet. Now, a macro lens is also a prime lens (at least I can't think of any true macros that are zooms), so you gain some of the same benefits there, except the price gap isn't quite as large between a macro and zoom lens. I'm a Canon guy, but Nikon has a similar lineup, so I'm assuming they have macro lenses around the 50mm and 100mm range. For tank shots, I prefer the 100mm, as you can't always get as close as you'd like to certain objects in your tank (that pesky glass and water keeps getting in the way). The bad news is, 100mm is often a bit long for other indoor photography.

So, ideally, I'd say you should get two lenses to satisfy all of your needs. First, a macro lens around 100mm, and also a 50mm prime.

Leafer · 05/11/2012, 01:02 PM

Thanks for your comments. I am coming to that same conclusion but appreciate hearing comments from folks who have used similar lens. I like to figure what I would like most given my abilities and then consider cost or options if necessary.

I have an old, manual 50mm 1:8 which I used on a film camera. I’m trying to decide if that is usable or not.

So, currently in my D90 bag is the walk around zoom. It seems most desirable to add:

Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF (or something similar)
and
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR

It doesn’t seem like there is a lot overlap here and a clear choice for whatever I happen to be doing. When I first started researching I seemed to find that many seemed very happy taking aquarium photos just with a prime lens. But, I think I'm going to enjoy the value of each.

Misled · 05/11/2012, 03:40 PM

You should be able to use the 50mm, though it may be with limited features. I use an old Sigma mini-wide that only meters. Everything else is manual, but because it's not used for "quick" shots, it's fine. I keep a 24-70 on my camera normally. There are a few older AF lenses you should be able to use, but the nifty 50 is a great lens.

Yes, the 105 is the macro you want. There are also AF models out there, which does AF on the D90, but it's a little slower. For most of your macro work you're going to want to focus manually.

IslandCrow · 05/15/2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Misled

Yes, the 105 is the macro you want. There are also AF models out there, which does AF on the D90, but it's a little slower. For most of your macro work you're going to want to focus manually.

And that's a very good point. For static objects (like corals or full tank shots), I may use the autofocus just to get pretty close, but then I'll use "Live View" to zoom in and really nail the focus. I'm guessing Nikon calls it something different than live view, but I'm guessing your camera has the ability to use the LCD to view the scene through the lens, zoom in and then focus manually.

NatureNerd · 05/20/2012, 02:27 PM

Ok, it is not the most robust Nikkor and it is a DX lens, but the little AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm f3.5 seems to work great for fishtank shots. My 105 was just a bit too much for fish, and my 60 wasn't that good for corals not right at the front glass. I have really liked the 85 Micro. It is a good flower lens too. Mine is extremely sharp and the VR comes in handy some times. It is not too expensive either.

NatureNerd · 05/22/2012, 10:48 PM

Here are a couple shots with the Micro Nikkor 85mm:

For a mid-sized tank like my 75g it is a great focal length. For a really large tank where your subject could be far from the glass, a 105 or 200 macro would be a better choice. For flowers, insects, and most other land subjects, this little lens is my new favorite because you can sometimes get away with handholding it. I also like this lens for people portraits.

05/11/2012, 08:46 AM	#1
Leafer Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Flanders, NJ Posts: 259	Prime & Macro I have a D90 with the kit lens and have been craving a prime lens for some time. I’d like to present some parameters and see if you think one lens would give me excellent results or do I need two. • Consider Nikkor only • Fast and sharpness highly valued • Want to take flashless photos inside • Will be taking lots of photos of fish and corals in my 150g (with and without a flash/strobe) thanks for your comments

05/11/2012, 11:52 AM	#2
IslandCrow Reef Monkey Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Rockledge, Fl Posts: 5,759	There are a couple of advantages to prime lenses, which may fall in line with what you're wanting. First, you can often find a prime lens with a wider aperture than an equivalent zoom lens. That's going to help out quite a bit with your low light photography. Just realize that the trade off is that you're going to lose depth of field. The second advantage is the cost. For instance, my 50mm f/1.4 cost me around $400, whereas a similar quality zoom lens that covers the 50mm range can cost you up to $1000 more. As far as tank shots specifically, a macro lens is generally going to be your best bet. Now, a macro lens is also a prime lens (at least I can't think of any true macros that are zooms), so you gain some of the same benefits there, except the price gap isn't quite as large between a macro and zoom lens. I'm a Canon guy, but Nikon has a similar lineup, so I'm assuming they have macro lenses around the 50mm and 100mm range. For tank shots, I prefer the 100mm, as you can't always get as close as you'd like to certain objects in your tank (that pesky glass and water keeps getting in the way). The bad news is, 100mm is often a bit long for other indoor photography. So, ideally, I'd say you should get two lenses to satisfy all of your needs. First, a macro lens around 100mm, and also a 50mm prime. __________________ All opinions in the above message should be taken with 35 ppt salt. -Mike C. Current Tank Info: I have a reef screen saver on my phone, does that count?

05/11/2012, 03:40 PM	#4
Misled RC Mod Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Posts: 11,440 Blog Entries: 11	You should be able to use the 50mm, though it may be with limited features. I use an old Sigma mini-wide that only meters. Everything else is manual, but because it's not used for "quick" shots, it's fine. I keep a 24-70 on my camera normally. There are a few older AF lenses you should be able to use, but the nifty 50 is a great lens. Yes, the 105 is the macro you want. There are also AF models out there, which does AF on the D90, but it's a little slower. For most of your macro work you're going to want to focus manually. __________________ Jesse I'm not saying I'm Batman. I'm just saying nobody has ever seen me and Batman in a room together.

05/20/2012, 02:27 PM	#6
NatureNerd Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Posts: 877	Ok, it is not the most robust Nikkor and it is a DX lens, but the little AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm f3.5 seems to work great for fishtank shots. My 105 was just a bit too much for fish, and my 60 wasn't that good for corals not right at the front glass. I have really liked the 85 Micro. It is a good flower lens too. Mine is extremely sharp and the VR comes in handy some times. It is not too expensive either. __________________ Reef tanks since 1987. Current tank: 75g SPS dominated reef tank set up in 1996

05/22/2012, 10:48 PM	#7
NatureNerd Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Posts: 877	Here are a couple shots with the Micro Nikkor 85mm: For a mid-sized tank like my 75g it is a great focal length. For a really large tank where your subject could be far from the glass, a 105 or 200 macro would be a better choice. For flowers, insects, and most other land subjects, this little lens is my new favorite because you can sometimes get away with handholding it. I also like this lens for people portraits. __________________ Reef tanks since 1987. Current tank: 75g SPS dominated reef tank set up in 1996

05/11/2012, 01:02 PM	#3
Leafer Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Flanders, NJ Posts: 259	Thanks for your comments. I am coming to that same conclusion but appreciate hearing comments from folks who have used similar lens. I like to figure what I would like most given my abilities and then consider cost or options if necessary. I have an old, manual 50mm 1:8 which I used on a film camera. I’m trying to decide if that is usable or not. So, currently in my D90 bag is the walk around zoom. It seems most desirable to add: Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF (or something similar) and Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR It doesn’t seem like there is a lot overlap here and a clear choice for whatever I happen to be doing. When I first started researching I seemed to find that many seemed very happy taking aquarium photos just with a prime lens. But, I think I'm going to enjoy the value of each.