what macro lens is this?

[Fota]

Hi,

I'm about to convert from prosumer Oly 7070 to Nikon D-SLR and I really wonder what macro lens corresponds with what I have on my 7070.

Here are some tests I did with my 7070.

In its supermacro mode it can focus as close as 3cm. With camera inside Ikelite housing, this means focus inside the port.

With no uw-housing, the smallest thing I can shoot in super macro mode that fills the screen is 2.6cm wide. Distance from lens is about 2 cm.

In normal (macro) mode it can focus as close as 20cm. Inside Ikelite housing, it gives a distance of 11cm from port. Inside uw-housing, the smallest thing that fills the screen is 11cm wide.

How can I translate this into D-SLR macro lenses?
Is this a typical 60mm or a 105mm macro lens?

Now if I could have my camera improved, I would really like to be able to shoot smaller creatures. I find it hard to get close than 4-5cm as it's so hard to lighten. But, at that distans I would love to fill the screen with a 1cm nudibranch.

I would also love to be able to shoot close up shots of small (10cm) by shy creatures from a distance. Perhaps from 30-40 cm distance. And fill the screen, or perhaps more.

Does this mean that a 60mm is perfect for me? Or 105? Or?
Or perhaps both!?

Anyone!?


/Fota

 

[Warren_L]

I can't tell from your description what the magnification is, but both the 60mm and 105mm micro lenses from Nikon do 1:1 macro. The difference is the working distance. You can achieve 1:1 from a greater distance with the 105. To get more than 1:1 you would need to use a teleconverter and the appropriate port extensions.

 

[AUTiger]

I just went from an Olympus C5060 with an Inon wet-mount macro lens to a D80 with a 60mm macro lens. I have not used the 105mm macro. I have done a good bit of reading on the boards.

The 60mm and 105mm both give you 1:1 macro (as Warren L already said), meaning that at the minimum focal distance, the image of the subject on the sensor will be the same size as the actual subject. If your subject is 1cm in size, it will be 1cm in size on the 2.2cm sensor. It should fill half of the frame. This is more magnification that I got with my 5060 and the macro lens together (from memory).

The biggest difference between the two lenses is that the 60mm has a minimum focal distance of 8.8" and the 105mm has a minimum focal distance of 12.0". The 105mm also costs twice as much (for the VR version, non VR is slightly cheaper).

With the 60mm, you can decrease the amount of water between you and the subject for a clearer picture. With the 105mm, you can take macro photos of a skittish subject from further away. Being further away also makes it easier to apply creative lighting to the subject. Being further away also makes it harder to steady the shot and get a focus lock. Smaller movements on the part of the photographer have a larger impact on where the lens is pointed. The magnification of both lenses can be increased by using a "Woody's" diopter (I think a 20-25% increase). Teleconverters can also be used to increase the focal length.

Most posts seem to recommend the 60mm as the best starter macro lens and the 105mm as a second lens or an upgrade. I was quite happy with my 60mm. I will borrow a 105mm at some point in the future and compare the two.

You can see some of my photos from my first outing with the camera at Catalina Photos with D80 and 60mm macro lens. Many of these photos have been cropped. I found the lense useful for small gobies up to medium sized fish. One photo is even a 4 foot leopard shark from a distance.

Incidentally, I have heard a report that the new 105mm VR has a faster focus system than the non-VR version.

David

 

[Fota]

I can't tell from your description what the magnification is, but both the 60mm and 105mm micro lenses from Nikon do 1:1 macro. The difference is the working distance. You can achieve 1:1 from a greater distance with the 105. To get more than 1:1 you would need to use a teleconverter and the appropriate port extensions.

So no matter how close I get with the 105, I'll never get more than 1:1? The only thing I will achieve is getting too close for the lense to focus? Right?

If so, one thing still puzzles me.

The minimum focal distance is, as far as I know, calculated from inside the camera to the object. I don't really know the distance from the camera to the end of the port of e.g. a D200/D80 inside an Ikelite uw-housing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like 60mm's minimum focal distance , i.e. 8.8".

So, if the 60mm only provides 1:1 very close to the port, then, as I'm not able to take uw pictures that close (impossible to lighten them etc), I wouldn't be able to achieve 1:1 with it.
If so, even though 60mm in theory provides 1:1, in reality the 105mm macro lens would be needed to get 1:1 uw.

Right or wrong!?

 

[Mike Veitch]

you can add diopters to the 105 to get closer to your subject... and therefore theoretically greater than 1:1. By adding a teleconverter such as the 2x then you will def achieve greater than 1:1

sounds to me like you want the 105.

 

[Wolverine]

You should be able to get to 1:1 with both lenses under water but to get greater than 1:1, you will probably need a diopter (which lets you focus closer ie, you move closer and get a larger image) or a teleconverter ( which magnifies the image at the working distance). I just upgraded from the 7070 to the D200 and I have used the 105mm with a 3x diopter and you can get REALLY close ( but no need to be 3-4cm like the 7070) but DOF is really shallow. The strobe setup and focussing light has to be positioned such that it can light the subject. And you probably have to use a very small aperture. But a 1cm nudi will fill the frame.

With the 60mm, you may be able to get better than 1:1 with a diopter but not much cos' the port will get in the way. So, for super macro using a diopter, I think you will probably need the 105mm.

Edit: Diopters to consider: Olympus MCON 35 (recently discontinued but should still be on the shelves), Nikon 5T and 6T (this are discontinued and are really difficult to find) and the Canon ones (don't know them well and the diameters are small). You do not really want the single element diopters cos the picture quality is really bad.

Teleconverters will work as well but at the expense of light loss. Also not all converters can work with the 60mm or the 105mm, and good ones cost as much as the 60mm. And you will have to get an extension ring for the housing. Wetpixel has loads of discussions regarding this. Have Fun!

 

[Fota]

The 60mm and 105mm both give you 1:1 macro (as Warren L already said), meaning that at the minimum focal distance, the image of the subject on the sensor will be the same size as the actual subject. If your subject is 1cm in size, it will be 1cm in size on the 2.2cm sensor. It should fill half of the frame. This is more magnification that I got with my 5060 and the macro lens together (from memory).David

Hi David,

Firstly, thanks for yours and thanks everybody else for your great replies!

Now, question. ;-)
Does this simply mean that as the sensor is 2.2cm wide, an object of 2.2cm will fill the the sensor in a 1:1 macro lens?

/Fota

 

[Wolverine]

Errrr I would think so.. but I think someone more qualified should answer

 

[Fota]

I just went from an Olympus C5060 with an Inon wet-mount macro lens to a D80 with a 60mm macro lens. David

David,

Oh, I simply must ask (sorry is I've asked you before), how much trouble did you think it was start using the viewfinder instead of the display when composing uw? Which were the main drawbacks? If any? Did you find ways around them or did you simply have to live with them? Any regrets (of not getting a D-SLR with liveview)?
Which

I try to ask this question to everyone who has walked the path from prosumer to D-SLR as it's ciurrently my main concern.

In theory I can see many benefits of using the viewfinder, but in practice I'm a little worried it will be more trouble than good. I have perfect vision and I'm able to focus on both a display and viewfinder.

Perhaps is it very much depending on the uw-housing?
I plan to get an Ikelite.

I'd love to get a Nikon, but the fact that the E-330 provides (a good, but not great) liveview and now costs a third(!) of a D200 makes it harder to make up my mind. The viewfinder on the E-330 on the other hand is crap (small and dark). I have no lenses so at the moment I can go either way.


/Fota

 

[Warren_L]

So, if the 60mm only provides 1:1 very close to the port, then, as I'm not able to take uw pictures that close (impossible to lighten them etc), I wouldn't be able to achieve 1:1 with it.
If so, even though 60mm in theory provides 1:1, in reality the 105mm macro lens would be needed to get 1:1 uw.

Right or wrong!?

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it will be the problem you're thinking it might be. I've been shooting the 60mm for a while now and it's not been a problem achieving 1:1. But if you have your heart set on a 105mm, go for it. I also have been using the 105mm (non VR), but would suggest as a first macro lens, the 60mm may be a better choice, as the 60mm can also double as a non-macro lens for portraits. But not with the 105.

As for your question on the E330 vs the Nikon D80/200, go for the features you're comfortable with. In both systems, you're going to get some great quality shots. For me live view is something that I don't need nor want, and wouldn't use if my camera could do it. I did transition from an Olympus C5050 to dSLR a couple of years ago, and haven't missed live view one bit. Of much more value to me is good quality viewfinder. However, my decision to go either way would not be driven primarily by camera, but rather by what lenses I wanted to use.