Nikon Macro Lens query!

OK, so the 70-180mm is technically discontinued... I figured there had to be a replacement, so I went and played at the camera shop today.

It would appear there is not a "replacement" for this lens.

I did however take a look at the AF-S VR 70-200 f/2.8 ED-IF. And it looks like it would fit in the Aquatica flat port.

However! The closest focus is 5 FEET!

Is it possible to use a diopter to bring this down to 15 or 20 inches? I am looking for a 1:2 solution, and not sure the best way to go about it. Both the 60mm and 105mm are 1:1 lenses. I want twice that. It looks like the 70-180 was a 1:1.33 lens without a diopter (at 14 inches).

Also, does a diopter reduce the quality of the optics?

Diopters reduce quality and working distances. If you add a +4 diopter

lens, the infinity of your lens change to 1/4 = 25cm. You obtain a reduced

rate of working distance (ex.(+4) about 20 to 25cm)

If you are looking for quality, forgot these zoom lens

Your options are:

Nikkor 60 and 105 micro

Tamron 90mm

Sigma 50 and 105 macro

Sigma 180 macro (I think too large focal for s2pro)

with all lenses you obtain 1:1 ratio (with your s2pro, 1.5:1)

I got mine some three months ago. It is not really clear whether this lens is really to be discontinued. I could not get a firm answer from Nikon on that (maybe they do not know either what is going on in the land of the rising sun... ). Anyways, this lens is still on stock, at least here in Europe. It might be difficult to get it from a discounter, but from a direct Nikon shop (at the full recommended price tag although ) it should be buyable. And most important, I would not swap that lens anymore, it is an increadable thing. I use it together with my Woody Push on lens or without this one during the same dive.

The former post was about the NIKON 70-180! :?

 I am looking for a 1:2 solution, and not sure the best way to go about it.  Both the 60mm and 105mm are 1:1 lenses.  I want twice that.

1:2, or 2:1... very different beasts indeed. I think you must mean 2:1 (object is reproduced 2x lifesize on imaging device). This would mean you want more magnification than is possible from either of the primes, and for that matter, more than the 70-180 is capable.

If you do mean 1:2 (half life size), both the 60 and the 105 will do that, as it is on the way to their maximum, not beyond it. The 70-180 would do it as well.

For 2:1, you could add a 2x teleconvertor +/- dioptres to the 105. The dioptre will reduce the working distance, and the working distance of the 60 is already short enough that you probably don't want to go there (ie putting a dioptre on the 60). I would only do that if I was shooting postage stamps and coins.

In essence, the dioptre route reduces the working distance of the lens, allowing closer focusing and thus greater reproduction ratio. Teleconvertors work by magnifying the image after the lens has focused at whatever working distance it is capable of.

1:2, or 2:1... very different beasts indeed. I think you must mean 2:1 (object is reproduced 2x lifesize on imaging device). This would mean you want more magnification than is possible from either of the primes, and for that matter, more than the 70-180 is capable.

You are correct, 2:1. I guess I got it backwards due to the Nikon catalog. They list the 70-180 as a 1:1.3 lens, and I assumed it was capable of BETTER than 1:1.

I totally enjoy shooting 1:1 with the 105mm. However I see a number of oportinities on my local dives to want more! The 105 already focuses as close to the critter as proper lighting will allow, and I was looking for twice the magnification at that same point, about 6 inches in front of the port. That equates to about 14 or 15 inches from the sensor.

If a teleconvertor is used on the 105mm, what happens to the close focus distance?

Also, is the 10-180 actaully 1:1.3 (less than 1:1) or the reverse, 1.3:1?

1:2, or 2:1... very different beasts indeed. I think you must mean 2:1 (object is reproduced 2x lifesize on imaging device). This would mean you want more magnification than is possible from either of the primes, and for that matter, more than the 70-180 is capable.

 

You are correct, 2:1. I guess I got it backwards due to the Nikon catalog. They list the 70-180 as a 1:1.3 lens, and I assumed it was capable of BETTER than 1:1.

 

I totally enjoy shooting 1:1 with the 105mm. However I see a number of oportinities on my local dives to want more! The 105 already focuses as close to the critter as proper lighting will allow, and I was looking for twice the magnification at that same point, about 6 inches in front of the port. That equates to about 14 or 15 inches from the sensor.

 

If a teleconvertor is used on the 105mm, what happens to the close focus distance?

 

Also, is the 10-180 actaully 1:1.3 (less than 1:1) or the reverse, 1.3:1?

A teleconverter is what you want. It works by expanding the center of the image from the original lens by it's magnification factor. So with a 2x converter the minimum focus distance of your 105 will be the same as before but the image will be twice as big at the sensor plane. It will also decrease you aperture by 2 stops, i.e 105mm lens + 2x converter at F/8 = 210mm lens at F/16 .

Excellent!

Thanks Herb!

It will also decrease you aperture by 2 stops, i.e 105mm lens + 2x converter at F/8 = 210mm lens at F/16 .

Does this mean I SET the camera to f/16 instead fo f/8, or that the camera ACTS like it was set to f/16 when set to f/8?

Excellent!

 

Thanks Herb!

 

It will also decrease you aperture by 2 stops, i.e 105mm lens + 2x converter at F/8 = 210mm lens at F/16 .

 

Does this mean I SET the camera to f/16 instead fo f/8, or that the camera ACTS like it was set to f/16 when set to f/8?

That depends on your lens and teleconverter. Some combinations are smart enough to do the math correctly. My SIgma 105mm and Tamron 2x TC is not. I set f/8 when I want f/16 with that combination.

Also, is the 70-180 actaully 1:1.3 (less than 1:1) or the reverse, 1.3:1?

I think there may be an element of "wily-ole inscrutable japanese logic" and some potTAYto/poTAHto going on here... and I am most likely wrong in my previous post.

I think that the correct interpretation of 1:1.3 is "every 1 cm on the film/imager plane is 1.3cm in real life", ie it is about 70% of lifesize. Thus 1:1 is life size, 2:1 means "every two cm on the imaging plane is 1 cm in real life", thus 2x magnification.

The 70-180 can achieve 1:1.3, AKA app 70% of life size on the imaging plane, when it is focused at the closest working distance and is zoomed out to "180". The quotes around the "180" are there because in reality, the 180 focal length is more like 90, but because focal length is defined at infinity focus, not close focus, the lens is specified as 70-180...

clear as mud, huh?

clear as mud, huh?

I think so!

What this DOES tell me is that I won't get anything from the 70-180 that I don't already have with the 105mm.

Is this correct?

clear as mud, huh?

 

I think so!

 

What this DOES tell me is that I won't get anything from the 70-180 that I don't already have with the 105mm.

 

Is this correct?

You got me curious so I looked it up

http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp...&productNr=1983

70-180mm

14.6 in min focus, 1:1.32

and

http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp...&productNr=1988

105mm

12 in min focus 1:1

So the working distance for the 70-180mm would be 11 in at 1:1 if it was able to fouse that close. If you set out to do macro at the 1:1 to 1:2 range it does seem like the 105mm is a better choice.

Refering back a few posts, if I were to use a 105mm lens with a say a 4T diopter, I would not get any magnification greater than 1:1, I would just be reducing the lens to subject distance by about 25%.

Or consider the 200 mm + 4T diopter...

Now there is a howitzer of a lens/port combination, but the 200mm micro-nikkor+ a 4 T diopter will get you to 2:1 with reasonable working distance. You'll just have a hell of a time trying to find your subject in the veiwfinder

Thanks again Craig and Herb.

I think this turned out to be an interesting thread. I am a little suprised that more of you are not /have not already run into this. It seems like the film guys are are always talking about 2:1 and 4:1.

Is there a reason the digital gang hasn't really gone there yet?

Boy, you guys sure have done a good job of confusing yourselves (except drcraig, and herb who seems to get it). I'm not blaming anyone here, just a blanket statement that people are maybe saying things or stating things that they don't have experience with yet. Hopefully this doesn't sound condescinging because that's not how I mean it to be. Rather - read through your posts as if you were a beginner reading them for the first time and ask yourself "Does that sound confusing?"

Here's how it works:

70-180 is a macro zoom lens. It does not do 1:1 on a film camera, but with the digital equivalens it does 1.5/1.33 - you do the math, it's a little better than lifesized. What someone else was saying (Craig) was that at the close focus end of the lens, when zoomed to 180 mm, the lens gives the reproduction ratio of a 90mm fixed focus lens. That is because the 70-180 is a varifocal lens (do a search to see what that means). I also posted an article explaining it some months ago.

The 105 will do 1:1 with a film camera at it's closest working distance. For digital shooters, that means it will give a 35mm equivalent of 1.5:1 When you add a diopter to a macro lens (any macro lens) it brings the infinity and the close focus in towards the lens. By definition, a +1 diopter will bring infinite focus in to 1 meter and close focus will come in a lot. What that results in is greater magnification in the finished product (your photo).

Here's a tutorial. Imagine cutting out a 26mm wide x 24mm tall piece of cardboard (that's how big film is). Using a film camera and a 105mm lens, you would be able to take a photo of that cardboard filling the frame at the "closest focus' of the lens (it's around 14"). Now put a diopter on the lens and the closest focus moves in to like ~6 inches from the tip of the lens. So move the cardboard in to 6" and take another shot of it. Whatever is on that cardboard will look a heck of a lot bigger, you're greater than 1:1 now.

FWIW, I just got back from a trip where I did most of my dives with the 105mm and a +1 Nikon diopter. I was able to get well lit shots with a reproduction of about 2:1, maybe even a little bit greater.

I'll post some later this evening.

And to answer your last question Rich: it's easier to get greater magnification on a digital cropped sensor camera and people are doing it. Do a search for some of Chris Bangs posts. He shoots 5:1 with his S2pro. A word of caution though, you need a very special port setup and lots of experience to try shooting greater than 1:1 because it's VERY frustrating.

Cheers

James

Here's an uncropped shot using the 105mm and +1 diopter. This is at the closest focus I could get - the subject is about 5" from the end of the port. It's not the best shot I got, but it's at the closest focus.

For anyone who's familiar with carribbean corals, that is M. cavernosa - polyps are about 1cm across.

Cheers

James

James, thanks that is a great explanation. I just upgraded from the 60mm to the 105mm macro lens and wanted to understand the effects of diopters. I just ordered a 4T from B&H and now I am wondering if that is too powerful and perhaps I should just start with a 1T.

I am also wondering, if with a digital camera, a 105 plus diopter I can get 2:1 reproduction. How would a 2X TC help? Is the function of the TC to increase my working distance from the subject?

Thanks,

James (Miami)

Thanks for clearing things up here James I was about to abandon this thread because the discussion became so obfuscated.

Also the pic is terriffic. What was your exposure? How do you keep from spooking critters at 5" ? Wow!

I think that much of the true importance of 1:1 is lost on digital. On film you could take a picture of a postage stamp at 1:1, look at the negative and say this is the exact size of that postage stamp. Cool.

But with digital there is nothing phisical to look at so the point of reproduction ratios is lost on me. Magnification is however important.

A 1:1 lens gives 1:1 weather it is on digital or on film. Reproduction ratio is a charchteristic of the lens not the camera or film size. So, the 105mm in your previous example with your 26mm wide x 24mm tall piece of cardboard that fills the frame on a film camera at closest focus, on a Nikon digital a 23.7mmx15.6mm cardboard would fill the frame at closest focus and give 1:1. The image in either case would project a lifesize image on the sensor or film plane. Both give 1:1 its just that the "film" on one is smaller than the film on the other.

Now you do have the real advantage with digital in that you can take 1:1 of smaller stuff. Or you can back up a bit and take less than 1:1 of a normal size object and still fill the frame (but in this case it would be less than 1:1 but who cares?). Its a small technicality and again magnification not reproduction ration is important to me on digital, but it is a difference.

That's why I say 1:1 (35mm equivalent) or 1:1 (film equivalent). All it is is a frame of reference that I am defining and I find it useful to me. It allows us digital shooters and film shooters to share a "common language."

When I say 1:1 to a film shooter, they know what I'm talking about (a 36mm wide critter). After saying it enough times and repeating "1:1 (35mm equivalent)" enough times digital shooters may get what I mean without getting confused by "crop factors" bogus "focal length multipliers" etc...

Cheers

James