Camera lens for taking really good MACRO shots?

[passedpawn]

You can move up into an FX body do it. The D7000 is still a DX. I think my ISO goes up to 6400 before H1, H2, and H3. It can get a little grainy that high but I rarely go that high.

I have a 50mm prime with a 1.4f for portraits and walking around. It is an amazing lens.

I used to have a Sigma 50mm prime f/1.4. That's a GREAT lens for indoor shooting. Holy cow. Never needed a flash with that.

I've got a Canon f/1.8 now, it's still fast, but man 1.4 is where it's AT

 

[shelly_belly]

My wife is wanting something with a good zoom lens and it seems the majority of the pictures she takes are indoors or nightime outside under artificial lighting. I don't think she's nerdy enough to appreciate a DSLR and multiple lenses. I think I'm going to get her a Panasonic Lumix FZ200 that comes paired to a 25-600mm f/2.8 Leica lens. And that's f/2.8 across the whole focal length of the lens! Also, it's an older camera so it's currently 1/2 of it's original $600 price.

 

[Homercidal]

She's asking if we should buy a body-only camera and keep our kit lens, or buy a new camera with the kit lens. It seems to be about $100 more to go that way.

Is a new kit lens really worth $100 difference??

I'd consider selling the kit lens with our old camera and buying the f-1.4 or whatever that she wants. I could probably get by with that and the 300mm telephoto for our needs.

 

[Xernex]

What kit are you looking at out of curiosity - some of the kit lenses are junk, yet some are surprisingly useful.

 

[Homercidal]

What kit are you looking at out of curiosity - some of the kit lenses are junk, yet some are surprisingly useful.

We're looking at the D5500 with the basic lens. I don't know the specs on our current lens, but it's very likely the kit lens that came with the D50 years ago.

Also need to know if there is any compatibility issues with using our old kit lens on the new body.

She seems to be in favor of selling the camera and lens and getting the kit instead of body-only. I guess it's a toss-up for me. That way would make our old camera at least a little valuable.

Oh, and she really likes the RED body model...

EDIT: Meant to say I think they are both 18-55mm lenses...

 

[Xernex]

I'd wager that both lenses will perform almost identically - if the new one with the kit is VR that'd be a nice upgrade, and it may auto-focus a fair amount quicker, image quality from the glass itself will probably be about the same - Fairly sure that you'd have 0 compatibility issues, Nikon has been very nice in not changing much on the mounts over the years.

 

[ajdelange]

An FX lens is designed to cover 36 mm (the longer dimension of a 24 x 36 mm frame). A DX lens is designed to cover the smaller DX sensor. Thus you can use an FX lens on a full frame or reduced frame camera and be insured of adequate performance on either. If, OTOH, you use a DX lens on a full frame camera you will only get advertised MTF in the DX sized part of the frame and quite probably noticeable dimming of the image outside that area and probably more chromatic abberation. The smaller coverage area obviously simplifies lens design and this means that the DX lenses can be sold at consumer prices and the engineers aren't going to expend resources in optimizing lens performance for full frame coverage when trying to sell a consumer product.

I believe the full frame cameras will detect a DX lens and produce an image off the central DX portion of a full frame sensor. I did not know that this could be disabled but if it can don't expect the outer parts of the image to be too good.

Now in today's world we have software that will remove the vignetting and some lenses (computer lenses) store their chromatic aberration error data so software can take this out too.

Anyway, if one is not certain that he will never shoot full frame (and there is the DOF issue to think of in this regard) the obvious answer is to buy FX lenses as they cover etiher. If you never go to FX you have, of course, wasted money on capability you don't need but, OTOH, of you have a drawer full of DX lenses and do decide to go to FX you'll have to get new lenses anyway.

I've never bought a DX lens for these reasons and probably never will but then most of my lenses were bought when FX meant a piece of film.

 

[Homercidal]

I'd wager that both lenses will perform almost identically - if the new one with the kit is VR that'd be a nice upgrade, and it may auto-focus a fair amount quicker, image quality from the glass itself will probably be about the same - Fairly sure that you'd have 0 compatibility issues, Nikon has been very nice in not changing much on the mounts over the years.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II

According to the Nikon website. I just realized the VR probably means Vibration Reduction. So that would definitely be a nice upgrade for her. She's historically been unable to hold very still when taking pictures!

 

[CU_tony]

The VR is a nice feature, it more or less let's you shoot a stop or two smaller without a tripod... sorta. It works well while tracking a moving subject or if you are moving.

If your wife always has camera shake issues it might be better to research proper holding techniques to make sure that she is providing the best shooting scenario.

 

[Homercidal]

The VR is a nice feature, it more or less let's you shoot a stop or two smaller without a tripod... sorta. It works well while tracking a moving subject or if you are moving.

If your wife always has camera shake issues it might be better to research proper holding techniques to make sure that she is providing the best shooting scenario.

I think all she really needs is to remember to hold still when pushing the shutter. She's had problems since forever, even with cell phones and small cameras.

Only recently has her newer phones helped her out. I think she is quite capable of holding still if she practices.

She's getting excited. Looks like we are selling the old camera and kit lens and getting a new D550 with the newer kit lens and then looking for a decent f1.4 or f1.8 prime lens for serious shots.

Our luck they will ban long lenses at the convention next year after we upgrade...

 

[Xernex]

forgot to mention if you haven't already check keh.com for used lenses/bodies if you're not dead set on something brand spanking new.

 

[ajdelange]

I always think in terms of the way I was taught to shoot a rifle. Deep breath, let 2/3 out and squeeze.

 

[Homercidal]

forgot to mention if you haven't already check keh.com for used lenses/bodies if you're not dead set on something brand spanking new.

We are actually looking at factory refurbs from a trusted reseller. Can save about $150, which could go towards a decent Prime lens.

I always think in terms of the way I was taught to shoot a rifle. Deep breath, let 2/3 out and squeeze.

Yes, but I don't think she's ever shot a rifle. One time her old boyfriend had her shoot his handgun and she never particularly enjoyed shooting. I think she'll do fine once she starts taking portraits and candids and gets some practice. But a VR lens can't hurt most shots.

 

[passedpawn]

I always think in terms of the way I was taught to shoot a rifle. Deep breath, let 2/3 out and squeeze.

You forgot about trigger discipline The squeezing part requires just as much care.

 

[Homercidal]

You forgot about trigger discipline The squeezing part requires just as much care.

She's got her squeeze down just fine.

 

[CU_tony]

http://expertphotography.com/how-to-hold-a-camera/
That has some decent options regarding proper camera control.
Also you might consider beginner photography classes as you can pour all your money into a hobby,but if you don't know how to use your gear or have realistic expectations for it you won't be doing yourself any favors.
Lastly check bhphoto.com for some good used deals
Search Ken Rockwell photography for some good gear reviews and photo insight

 

[Rehlgood]

She's asking if we should buy a body-only camera and keep our kit lens, or buy a new camera with the kit lens. It seems to be about $100 more to go that way.

Is a new kit lens really worth $100 difference??

I'd consider selling the kit lens with our old camera and buying the f-1.4 or whatever that she wants. I could probably get by with that and the 300mm telephoto for our needs.

If you already have kit lenses there is not need to get more of the are compatible with the new camera. Save the money and invest in a nice piece of glass.

 

[Photopilot]

My last response was in regards to the thread midstream where you described the want to photograph people onstage from a distance.

True macro photography is very very complicated for a variety of reasons.

You need a specific lens, usually costing $500+.

The depth of field is usually really small and because the lens and camera is heavy you will need the following:

You need a tripod.

You need a lens mounted flash or light diffuser

You need a wind break to keep the subject from moving if its a flower or something different.



You can get by with out all of these but your wife's success rate will be limited without all of the above and a whole lot of knowledge. Your wife will probably have better success with a cell phone without a lot of investment in time and practice.

 

[Homercidal]

My last response was in regards to the thread midstream where you described the want to photograph people onstage from a distance.

True macro photography is very very complicated for a variety of reasons.

You need a specific lens, usually costing $500+.

The depth of field is usually really small and because the lens and camera is heavy you will need the following:

You need a tripod.

You need a lens mounted flash or light diffuser

You need a wind break to keep the subject from moving if its a flower or something different.



You can get by with out all of these but your wife's success rate will be limited without all of the above and a whole lot of knowledge. Your wife will probably have better success with a cell phone without a lot of investment in time and practice.

All of this is understood. She's been doing pretty good with her phone. I'm more interested in the really close up stuff, but haven't had a chance to rig up a lighting solution, etc. I have extender tubes, but haven't had a chance to try them out.

One solution to the lighting I've seen years back was an LED ring that slips over the lens. It was designed for smaller point-and-shoot cameras, but would work on a DSLR just fine I imagine. My interest would be in designing one with good color.

I'm actually pretty excited for a newer camera. The MP is just too small on this one for the zoom and macro shots we want to take, and a good fast prime lens will be nice for lots of other things.

I tried repairing our tv last night. The PSU circuit board failed out again and I was unable to fix it with new Caps. I told the wife we might have to hold off on her new camera for a while and she made it quite clear we can move the TV from the bedroom to the living room before that happens! (I ended up moving my oldest's TV from the younger daughter's room instead. It wasn't getting much use in either room and I wanted to watch some football last night!)

 

[IslandLizard]

In regards to lens mounted flash/ring/LED lights, yes, they can get you light where needed, but the photographic quality of front-lit subjects is typically poor (no modeling), more so when there's a ring or more than one light source, adding all kinds of weird specular highlights. Best to use available light with modifiers or off-axis flash/LED lights with or without modifiers to control the direction and overall "quality" of light.

Like @Photopilot said, macro photography takes special dedication and equipment.

So does photographing people on stage from a distance. To get close-ups in that scenario is very different from macro/close-up photography, which is the title of this thread. "On stage" photography has it's own set of difficulties, technically and socially, as you want to be as unobtrusive as possible, being virtually invisible.

A prime lens there can give you the advantages of a larger aperture, but if your distance to the subjects is restricted, you are limited to the framing/composition it gives you from that viewpoint. A zoom has much more flexibility on framing and thus composition, alas with a 1-2 stop penalty on aperture, which also limits you from isolating your subject by selective focusing and shallow depth of field at its widest opening. So that's a choice to make.

Regarding kit lenses, I've found most to be mediocre, and of limited use. Better spend money on something in the range and performance qualities YOU want, not the camera manufacturer.

Beginner classes can be helpful if they really teach you camera handling, settings, and typical use. It all depends on the teacher. On the other side, there is tons of information available on the web, which can be more useful, and dedicated to your specific uses.

On a side note, 2 weeks ago I was handling a Canon M (video) camera on a nice portable rig using a beautiful 100mm (or 150mm) f/1.5 prime lens (non-Canon brand). What a dream that was!

 

[passedpawn]

All of this is understood. She's been doing pretty good with her phone. I'm more interested in the really close up stuff, but haven't had a chance to rig up a lighting solution, etc. I have extender tubes, but haven't had a chance to try them out.

One solution to the lighting I've seen years back was an LED ring that slips over the lens. It was designed for smaller point-and-shoot cameras, but would work on a DSLR just fine I imagine. My interest would be in designing one with good color.

I'm actually pretty excited for a newer camera. The MP is just too small on this one for the zoom and macro shots we want to take, and a good fast prime lens will be nice for lots of other things.

I tried repairing our tv last night. The PSU circuit board failed out again and I was unable to fix it with new Caps. I told the wife we might have to hold off on her new camera for a while and she made it quite clear we can move the TV from the bedroom to the living room before that happens! (I ended up moving my oldest's TV from the younger daughter's room instead. It wasn't getting much use in either room and I wanted to watch some football last night!)

If she's doing food photography, she probably needs a light box. Search amazon for portable light boxes. Relatively cheap (hint: Xmas/bday gift).

Regarding the tv thing, which is way OT, maybe start a new thread or PM me. I've fixed all sorts of tv's, from CRT to my current plasma. I've got lots to say there

 

[Photopilot]

All of this is understood. She's been doing pretty good with her phone. I'm more interested in the really close up stuff, but haven't had a chance to rig up a lighting solution, etc. I have extender tubes, but haven't had a chance to try them out.

One solution to the lighting I've seen years back was an LED ring that slips over the lens. It was designed for smaller point-and-shoot cameras, but would work on a DSLR just fine I imagine. My interest would be in designing one with good color.

I'm actually pretty excited for a newer camera. The MP is just too small on this one for the zoom and macro shots we want to take, and a good fast prime lens will be nice for lots of other things.

In the past your option was a very expensive ring mount or two flashes with brackets and wiring to light a macro subject. You can now get a lens mounted ring for cheap. If the color is not perfect you can correct it easily. Make sure you shoot in raw.

I highly recommend getting Adobe Lightroom. It is worth more than any new lens or toy you put into your camera bag.

 

[IslandLizard]

In the past your option was a very expensive ring mount or two flashes with brackets and wiring to light a macro subject. You can now get a lens mounted ring for cheap. If the color is not perfect you can correct it easily. Make sure you shoot in raw.

I highly recommend getting Adobe Lightroom. It is worth more than any new lens or toy you put into your camera bag.

Again, lens mounted lighting rings and systems don't give very complimentary results in photographs. They're more for utilitarian use, like your dentist does, to get an image quickly, not to win a photogenic competition.

Agreed, when a lot of image corrections are needed (light, noise), shoot RAW. Lightroom is great, among the best, although there are others...

Do they still sell Lightroom by itself or has all that stuff become sneaky subscription-ware now? If subscription only, that adds up to being a huge bill over the years. Possibly use or find an older version, CS5 or CS6 era with Photoshop that has Lightroom integrated. It should be updateable too. You may not get all the latest tweaks and tools from their cloud service appz, but for many users, they're not needed anyway. As long as it supports your camera's raw format, you're in good shape.

 

[Xernex]

Again, lens mounted lighting rings and systems don't give very complimentary results in photographs. They're more for utilitarian use, like your dentist does, to get an image quickly, not to win a photogenic competition.

I've got to disagree here - they aren't the easiest things in the world to work with, but you can get some fantastic shots with mounted ring lights, fashion photographers have used them for years - albeit often with multiple over lights as well. I've also seen some really incredible ring lit macros from time to time. They can work incredibly well, or quite badly.

I will preface as saying the only one I ever played with was an AlienBees ABR800 and that's 400 bucks...so I can't speak for the very cheapests solutions.

 

[Photopilot]

As far as i can tell all Adobe products are subscription based except Lightroom. A year or so ago I purchased LR 5 as a standalone for a $75 upgrade which was half price of the $150 normal purchase price. The other options is to subscribe to LR and Photoshop combo for $9.95/mos.

I have a full Adobe suite before it became subscription based only. I almost never need to use Photoshop because I do not want to make many corrections on the pixel level. The ability to make broad changes of images in LR is usually all I need. As much as i like the tweaks of LR I like it most for it's ability to organize and categorize my photo library.

Lightroom is available as a 30 day trial.

https://creative.adobe.com/products/download/lightroom?sdid=QTV3P81B&mv=other

 

[Homercidal]

I'm sure she'll be shooting RAW once she gets going, unless the situation limits it. It's hard to make file size an issue these days anyway. Only factor is speed and buffer. I didn't look too closely, because I doubt she will need to shoot many quickly in a row, but I have to believe the newer camera had a bigger, faster buffer.

She's counting her pennies now. It's getting real. And she's planning on photographing the clawfoot tub that used to be in the bathroom, and is now in the living room. We decided not to put it back in after the remodel, and it's been sitting in there because I believe she should be responsible for selling it, and she thinks it should be me. Since the extra $$ would be handy right now, I believe I won this round! (Except I think I have to put the feet back on for the picture, and I'll probably have to arrange to help someone load it if they buy it... )

It's all good, since I know have Birthday and Christmas present ideas for her. Lenses, filters, books, software, etc!

 

[Photopilot]

Lightroom is still available for download as a standalone.

https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/download-install-single-app-Lightroom-6.html

Even without owning LR you can still work with Raw using your software from Nikon. Just take a shot with a Raw image and a jpeg and then try to bring out the shadows and change the colors. You will be amazed. Half the work of a good photo happens after the shutter snaps.

 

[Xernex]

If I can remember - no promises - I'll check what books I have left at home, could possibly shove them in a flat rate box for ya.

 

[IslandLizard]

I've got to disagree here - they aren't the easiest things in the world to work with, but you can get some fantastic shots with mounted ring lights, fashion photographers have used them for years - albeit often with multiple over lights as well. I've also seen some really incredible ring lit macros from time to time. They can work incredibly well, or quite badly.

I will preface as saying the only one I ever played with was an AlienBees ABR800 and that's 400 bucks...so I can't speak for the very cheapests solutions.

In general, flat frontal lighting does nothing for the subject. The good thing is, it can be shadowless, not creating the hard cast shadow lines many point & shooters are so used to. In skilled hands a ring light or similar lens mount contraption can create pleasing and even stunning images, sure.

Fashion photographers use "ring-lights" for fill, not to light their subjects on the runway.

If you look closeup, you'll see ugly ring/donut-shaped specular highlights in the eyes and everywhere else reflections are.

Open any decent book or site on macro photography, and the on-camera or on-lens flash is basically taboo as a key light. There is some use for a ring/lens-mount flash for fill or where lights cannot be set up, in the latter case, again, a resort to obtain an acceptable image rather than nothing.

 

[Xernex]

Agreed on it being used as supplemental. I kinda dig the ring effect in eyes, makes them pop to me, but i know that's argued both ways and it's beating a dead horse.

Guess I should have been more specific - I always tried using it as supplemental - but got decent results (not award winning) w/ ring only, as opposed to no lighting.