mini ha ha micro shots

[dogbone]

here are some shots taken today. D70s with 55mm ƒ2.8 micro nikkor (that's an old AI lens)

link

Here's a link to a gum tree landscape shot in the picture gallery, I'm never sure which is the best place to post.

EDIT: link was down for a while due to domain name change.

 

[Shamus]

Wow! They are some nice shots!

 

[Abstract]

Yeah, definitely some nice shots. Next purchase is a macro lens. Obviously the 18-55 mm kit lens isn't cutting it for me and feels very limiting. Of course, I could always crop.

Question: I know that the "micro" designation of your 55 mm micro Nikkor lens means it takes macro shots and has a very short focusing distance, but if I bought a 50 mm f/1.8 lens, or 60 mm, but it doesn't have the "micro" designation in the description, can I still use it for macros, or will it not be as good? The 50 mm f/1.8 is so much cheaper than anything else, though.

Well, either way, I'll eventually get the 85 mm f/1.8, but it's not a designated macro lens either (I don't think), but the 105 mm f/2.8 lens is def. a macro lens.

 

[simie]

Great shots, i really like the gum-tree-texture and the tea-tree-bark.

 

[dogbone]

thanks for the comments shamus, and simie.

Question: I know that the "micro" designation of your 55 mm micro Nikkor lens means it takes macro shots and has a very short focusing distance, but if I bought a 50 mm f/1.8 lens, or 60 mm, but it doesn't have the "micro" designation in the description, can I still use it for macros, or will it not be as good? The 50 mm f/1.8 is so much cheaper than anything else, though.

No. Must say 'micro'. They have a completely different focussing mechanism, and they are optimised for a flat field view and also to give their best performance at ratios less than 1:10, however having said that the old 55 micro nikkor is one of the sharpest lenses ever made at any ratio. Which is why a micro lens is better than a standard focal length fixed lens unless you need very wide apertures. I haven't used the new nikkor digital micros but they go down to 1:1 whereas they old AI only do 1:2 without an extension ring, which is usually enough. Plus you can pick up an old nikkor micro AI for about $100.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

thanks for the comments shamus, and simie.



No. Must say 'micro'. They have a completely different focussing mechanism, and they are optimised for a flat field view and also to give their best performance at ratios less than 1:10, however having said that the old 55 micro nikkor is one of the sharpest lenses ever made at any ratio. Which is why a micro lens is better than a standard focal length fixed lens unless you need very wide apertures. I haven't used the new nikkor digital micros but they go down to 1:1 whereas they old AI only do 1:2 without an extension ring, which is usually enough. Plus you can pick up an old nikkor micro AI for about $100.

You are right, Nikon has used the "Micro" designation to denote their true macro lens range. Depending on who you talk to, "micro" or "macro" can start at 1/2 life size to life size (1:1). Micro can also be used to describe greater than 1:1. Yet many lenses describe themselves as "macro" at 1/4 life size.

Because of the FOV factor, it is possible to get better than 1:1 with the likes of the Nikon 60mm AF lens.