Macro 60mm or 100mm
- Thread starter kannon50
- Start date
- Tagged users None
OP
OP
kannon50
Well-Known Member
Thanks man! Can you explain what the difference would be? New to macro here....
oscarinw
Active Member
The difference is how much area you can cover from a very close distance. A 100mm lens is much more "zommed in" if you will compared to a 60mm. Therefore you will capture very small spaces.
Now, to that 2nd part of my statement that reads "from a very close distance"... Only lenses designed to be macro (micro for Nikkor) have the capacity to focus at a close distance. If you look at the specifications of any SLR lens, you will see a minimum focus distance. Macro (micro) lenses have the ability to be super close to their subjects and still focus. Take for example a zoom lens that has the capacity of both 60mm and 100mm. These zoom lenses normally have a much larger minimum focus distance and that distance also varies by the actual focal length it is set at. So while a 18-140mm can have a minimum focus distance of say 3 feet at 18mm it could have a minimum focus distance of 6 feet while at 140mm. It depends on the optics. A macro lens is like a microscope in that it can see a small area (High Focal Range, 100mm is pretty high but 200mm is even better) and it also can focus very close to its subject. If you can focus on a bee at 6 inches with a 200mm lens, you can call that a macro (micro) lens.
Now, to get a great picture you also want low light capabilities and stability... However, you only asked about focal range, not aperture or stabilization systems. More on that
Now, to that 2nd part of my statement that reads "from a very close distance"... Only lenses designed to be macro (micro for Nikkor) have the capacity to focus at a close distance. If you look at the specifications of any SLR lens, you will see a minimum focus distance. Macro (micro) lenses have the ability to be super close to their subjects and still focus. Take for example a zoom lens that has the capacity of both 60mm and 100mm. These zoom lenses normally have a much larger minimum focus distance and that distance also varies by the actual focal length it is set at. So while a 18-140mm can have a minimum focus distance of say 3 feet at 18mm it could have a minimum focus distance of 6 feet while at 140mm. It depends on the optics. A macro lens is like a microscope in that it can see a small area (High Focal Range, 100mm is pretty high but 200mm is even better) and it also can focus very close to its subject. If you can focus on a bee at 6 inches with a 200mm lens, you can call that a macro (micro) lens.
Now, to get a great picture you also want low light capabilities and stability... However, you only asked about focal range, not aperture or stabilization systems. More on that
OP
OP
kannon50
Well-Known Member
Lol ok well i shoot for the 100mm then ..... thanks for that info i got most of it no problem some of it made my head hurt hahahhaThe difference is how much area you can cover from a very close distance. A 100mm lens is much more "zommed in" if you will compared to a 60mm. Therefore you will capture very small spaces.
Now, to that 2nd part of my statement that reads "from a very close distance"... Only lenses designed to be macro (micro for Nikkor) have the capacity to focus at a close distance. If you look at the specifications of any SLR lens, you will see a minimum focus distance. Macro (micro) lenses have the ability to be super close to their subjects and still focus. Take for example a zoom lens that has the capacity of both 60mm and 100mm. These zoom lenses normally have a much larger minimum focus distance and that distance also varies by the actual focal length it is set at. So while a 18-140mm can have a minimum focus distance of say 3 feet at 18mm it could have a minimum focus distance of 6 feet while at 140mm. It depends on the optics. A macro lens is like a microscope in that it can see a small area (High Focal Range, 100mm is pretty high but 200mm is even better) and it also can focus very close to its subject. If you can focus on a bee at 6 inches with a 200mm lens, you can call that a macro (micro) lens.
Now, to get a great picture you also want low light capabilities and stability... However, you only asked about focal range, not aperture or stabilization systems. More on that
steve&mari
Blessed Reefer
Don't feel bad I'm learning this as well n it can seem little overwhelming at times but will be worth it when we're getting great pictures lol. I'm looking at macro lens also currently.
OP
OP
kannon50
Well-Known Member
I hear ya man. Photography i can handle , macro is a whole new world. From all the research i can find people say the Tamron lense is a good bang for the buck. But the way i see it if im gonna spend 400 on a used B model why not soend another 200 and get the Canon model. .... still processing these thoughts. My buddy is picking up a new 7D on blackfriday and is selling me his T5i for 250 so i cant pass that up. I hate this nikon d2200 ive been shooting with.
Tegridy Reef
2500 Club Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2015
- Messages
- 3,202
- Reaction score
- 764
I prefer my 100 over my 65 it's the working distance I can shot anything in my tank with the 100 with the 65 I have to b right on top of it so frag tank that's shallow my 65 kills it but for taking pics in my display tank were stuff is further back 100 all the way
So 100 I think 3 feet and the 65 I have to b less then foot to get 1:1 and one to one is life size so u can take the pic print it and would fit right in my 65 lens does 5:1 so if I would take the pic compare it to the object will b 5 times the size in real life the 65 I can make a grain of salt take up the hole screen
So 100 I think 3 feet and the 65 I have to b less then foot to get 1:1 and one to one is life size so u can take the pic print it and would fit right in my 65 lens does 5:1 so if I would take the pic compare it to the object will b 5 times the size in real life the 65 I can make a grain of salt take up the hole screen
trahelyk
Active Member
The difference is how much area you can cover from a very close distance. A 100mm lens is much more "zommed in" if you will compared to a 60mm. Therefore you will capture very small spaces.
Now, to that 2nd part of my statement that reads "from a very close distance"... Only lenses designed to be macro (micro for Nikkor) have the capacity to focus at a close distance. If you look at the specifications of any SLR lens, you will see a minimum focus distance. Macro (micro) lenses have the ability to be super close to their subjects and still focus. Take for example a zoom lens that has the capacity of both 60mm and 100mm. These zoom lenses normally have a much larger minimum focus distance and that distance also varies by the actual focal length it is set at. So while a 18-140mm can have a minimum focus distance of say 3 feet at 18mm it could have a minimum focus distance of 6 feet while at 140mm. It depends on the optics. A macro lens is like a microscope in that it can see a small area (High Focal Range, 100mm is pretty high but 200mm is even better) and it also can focus very close to its subject. If you can focus on a bee at 6 inches with a 200mm lens, you can call that a macro (micro) lens.
Now, to get a great picture you also want low light capabilities and stability... However, you only asked about focal range, not aperture or stabilization systems. More on that
Okay, so I have to take the bait and ask about aperture and stabilization. My first DSLR arrived yesterday, and my 60mm macro is arriving today (oops). Mainly about aperture: what do you think is ideal for the sorts of things we would want to photograph (sticks, twigs, blobs, and bits of goo)?
steve&mari
Blessed Reefer
I've been on a budget because of cancer so we got a used Olympus e510 and happy so far. It's wb goes up to 14k so I've gotten decent pics under all blue in raw without editing. Need macro to get closer lol.
Howard1234a
Community Member
Sorry to hear about the cancer. Your photo looks great! What kind of zoanthids are those?I've been on a budget because of cancer so we got a used Olympus e510 and happy so far. It's wb goes up to 14k so I've gotten decent pics under all blue in raw without editing. Need macro to get closer lol.
oscarinw
Active Member
The aperture of a lens will give it the ability to allow light to pass through it and onto the sensor (film back in the day). Aperture is measured on f stops and it works counter-intuitively. The larger aperture the smaller the f-number. In general, reef pictures should be taken with flash, but then the blue colors of the reef lights are washed away. When I shoot corals, I prefer non-flash pictures. This helps with capturing the reef colors under the reef lights. The subject of this picture (the 2 zoa polyps) measure probably 3/4". Yet you can get a much larger size on the screen. Mind you, this is probably 1/10 of the real picture size at 6000x4000 pixels:
In this case, the aperture of the lens is important because I want it to capture as much reef light as possible. However, for true macro shooting, you have to use your flash in which case aperture is not as important.
For this other image, I used flash allowing me to use a smaller aperture and faster exposure (therefore getting a 'crispier' image):
steve&mari
Blessed Reefer
The rainbows are ASD hyper jubilee and thank you for the kind words.
trahelyk
Active Member
That photo of your zoas is spectacular. How are you adjusting your white balance? On the camera, or in post-processing? I'm having a lot of trouble getting colors right--either way too blue, or, if I set a custom white balance, way too warm.
OP
OP
kannon50
Well-Known Member
thats shot in CWB, where i set the reference adjustment based off a picture of my RB leds. my 100mm macro came in last night and holy cow wait till you see those zoas through a macro ...ill post some pics tonight.
OP
OP
kannon50
Well-Known Member
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
