Use of 50mm verse the 100mm or same for Nikon

On our recent trip a discussion was had about the use of the 50mm vs the 100mm. Not in terms of fish portraits vs small stuff but in terms of which is better for macro.

Some felt that the close distance afforded the 50mm provided for sharper images while others felt the minimal distance change for close focus from the 50mm to the 100mm was minor in clear water and therefore allowed the photos of skittish subjects and less impact on the critters.

I would be curious to hear a discussion what others think and why as I think it may be helpful to many in making their choice when shooting.

Todd

A really interesting question Todd. The Nikon equivalents are 60mm and 105mm.

A major factor is certainly the size and approachability of the expected subject matter.

On Muck dives, for example, where the main subjects are all relatively slow moving, usually not that small and easily approached (e.g. frogfish, seahorses, scorpionfish, nudibranchs etc) then I prefer the 60mm. This also provides flexibility should I encounter a larger critter such as an octopus etc. On reef dives, I prefer the 105mm which I think makes it easier to shoot the more skittish creatures usually encountered here (gobies, blennies, small free swimming fish). Reef critters are often smaller than Muck site critters too.

Alex

p.s. Members interested in this debate, may also be interested in reading the various views on Sigma's 150mm macro lens that are discussed in this thread.

I fully agree with that assessment. The one thing I found interesting was that some said the extra distance would reduce the crisp detail in the shots. I was not convinced based on it being very minimal unless I took the 50mm down to 1:1 maybe. (The water was very clear)

We had 12 foot tide exchanges during our week thus it tends to clear out anything.

Another difference is perspective. For example an anemone fish including its environment in the background (max. possible DOF shot) – I often would prefer the 50mm (60mm) perspective. 100mm macros produce a more compressed and somehow more flat picture. Even on full frame (film) I liked 50mm very much, especially for this kind of shots.

Julian

In poorer visibility areas (Britain & Ireland) I have always preferred the shorter focal length as it meant less water between water and subject, but I do have to say that if conditions permit I now find myself using the 100 usm macro lens more and more.

I suspect that (I haven't really analysed it) I actually choose the lens for the potential of the dive site, erring on the side of caution if I think there may be 'bigger' creature to be photographed, and choosing the 100 if there is small, tricky to approach or get at life.

To add a further dimension, I have enjoyed using a 35mm lens when I have been after larger creatures like lobsters and similar and have always thought that this is an underrated focal length as most 35mm lenses (Canon & Nikon primes) focus pretty close (~8") and a diopter can always be added, and sit happily behind a flat port.

On our most recent trip I noticed a big difference between some of my photos (same creature, same dive, different lens, 60 on d70, 105 on D2x) taken with 60 vs 105mm.. Preferring the 60 over the 105... It seemed to me that DOF was better for the 60mm than 105 but after a previous discussion here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9913

it seems that DOF for both lenses should be the same given same object (image) to sensor size and f-step.......and then there is that whole issue with the "circle of confusion"....hmmmm.......

Im going to move to 60mm with my teleconverters and diopters. To my eye, the photos look better and I have more flexibility shooting with the 60 than 105....and save the optics discussion for more qualified contributors.

M.

Im going to move to 60mm with my teleconverters and diopters.  To my eye, the photos look better and I have more flexibility shooting with the 60 than 105..

 

M.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 60 is ok with teleconverters but you will find that diopters will reduce your working distance which can make lighting a bit more tricky. I use the 60 for macro up to 2:1 and the 105 for anything greater.

I tend to only use the 60 on sharks or if i am looking to get some larger critters. The 105 i find to much better for the super macro i like to shoot. I like to get right on top of things and push the lens to its absolute limit and focus on the smallest portion of the animal possible. With the 105 i am about 6 inches away to focus. With the 60 then i would have to be about 2 inches to get same frame...much more difficult to light and scares away more critters

This is a 105 plus a +2. With the 60 and a +2 i think i would actually have been in the anemone to get this shot....

And the 105 is much better around here for fish portraits as the fish are rather skittish

Very cool shot of the teeth.

The other thing is does the 4inch difference in subject to lens really affect the detail sharpness in a noticable way?

The other thing is does the 4inch difference in subject to lens really affect the detail sharpness in a noticable way?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In Singapore waters, where visibility can be less than 4", it does make a difference

Mat

Personally I find lighting quite tricky with 60mm especially for the tiny subject. I don't have the 105mm myself but really like the working distance of 60mm wiht 2x teleconverter and the ability get very close for the 2:1 shots.

The funny thing is - shooting the 60+ 2x teleconverter is very similar to shooting the 105.

Cheers

James

The funny thing is - shooting the 60+ 2x teleconverter is very similar to shooting the 105.

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is the performance of the 60mm + 2X auto focus Vs. the 105?

I'm sure with its f2.8 aperture, the 105 would perform better.

Cheers

James

The funny thing is - shooting the 60+ 2x teleconverter is very similar to shooting the 105.

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes this is true with one exception, working distance! in other words, If the 2X teleconverter is used for shooting at the max reproduction/magnification, but if you use the teleconverter to shoot 1:1 with more working distance on the 60 mm, then the 105 mm would would do the same thing with much better quality.

I have used the 60 mm with a 2X in situations where I know the vis will be bad such as in fine silt.

The funny thing is - shooting the 60+ 2x teleconverter is very similar to shooting the 105.

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know the working distance is similar between the two setup. However, the 60 with 2x teleconverter also will let you move in closer for bigger magnification if needed.

I was just experimenting with it to see if I really need to add a 105mm to my 70-180mm but decided that 70-180mm was just fine and when I need supermacro, 60mm with 2x tele is probably better than 105mm with diopter. I imagine that AF on 105mm with teleconverter is probably going to be much much worse than 60 with teleconverter.

In comparison to 70-180 with 5T diopter, 60mm with 2x teleconverter is a bit slower and hunts a bit more at supermacro range but otherwise is not significantly worse than the 70-180mm in my opinion. The port is also quite a bit shorter but surprisingly not noticeably much lighter than 70-180mm setup. May be the Subal D2X housing is just so heavy that the port did not add that much more weight