🚀 go-pugleaf

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just a final reminder to get your work in for the DIMi Macro
> photography competition with the prize of a Thinktank Photo 360
> backpack for the winner:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/comps/thinktank/july07.php
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne

 How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all cropped or 
do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens they 
call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or close up 
filters?

 Thanks for any pointers.

AJ 

On Jul 28, 4:51 pm, "Jonathan" <Jonat...@house.not> wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > Just a final reminder to get your work in for the DIMi Macro
> > photography competition with the prize of a Thinktank Photo 360
> > backpack for the winner:
> >http://www.dimagemaker.com/comps/thinktank/july07.php
> > Cheers,
>
> > Wayne
>
>  How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all cropped or
> do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens they
> call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or close up
> filters?
>
>  Thanks for any pointers.
>
> AJ

Macro lenses come in all shapes and sizes with different magnification
specs.  There is debate as to what is a "real" macro as many tele-
macros don't have a very high magnification ratio and are more "close
focus" than anything.

I personally call the start of macro at a ratio of 1:1... that is the
subject itself is recorded life size on the sensor/film, but if you
want to get into fly's eyes and stuff, you should be looking around a
5:1 ratio.

Jonathan wrote:

>  How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all cropped or 
> do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens they 
> call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or close up 
> filters?

I believe tubes give better quality at the cost of exposure time, 
filters are easier at the expense of image quality & bokeh. I've barely 
experimented with tubes, 'filters' are easy & merter proper.

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
news:43Cqi.102$rG7.72@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>>  How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all cropped 
>> or do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens 
>> they call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or 
>> close up filters?
>
> I believe tubes give better quality at the cost of exposure time, filters 
> are easier at the expense of image quality & bokeh. I've barely 
> experimented with tubes, 'filters' are easy & merter proper

Tubes are easy and meter properly.. 

Rita � Berkowitz wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> Thank you very much. You have given me much information to learn more
>> about. It sounds like fun and will keep me busy for some time. I have
>> a wide open budget so I will be spending more time than money in the
>> beginning. I have in the past spent more than I had to in order to
>> find out that I had over purchased but what you have supplied here
>> will no doubt save me both time and money. Money is much easier to
>> come by than time so I am grateful for this insight you have
>> provided. It is about time I updated my old Nikon D100 any way. I
>> guess it's time for the D200 at least. I have been eyeballing that
>> macro flash I see all the time on CSI even though I know they only
>> use it to look cool. My SB800 has been fine so far but I can see
>> macro is a totally new game.
>
> A couple things you can consider.  You can get the R1C1 kit that works
> really well and uses Nikon's CLS.  Or you can use your SB800 for
> macro.  I use mine for macro and love it.  A simple flashbracket,
> diffuser, SC-28 cable, $15 ballhead and you're ready for action. Also, for 
> what you pay for the R1C1 you can pick up two more SB800s
> and have a world more versatility with them.  Check out
> www.strobist.com for some great ideas and techniques before you buy
> any flash system.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita

Actually I have this SLS-006S Wide Mini Slave 
http://www.tokina.com.hk/products01-2m.htm  that works great. Something I 
bought a few years ago for about $25.00 and it works fine. It is activated 
by any other flash even the spark from a cigarette lighter. It recharges is 
a few seconds and is ready to go. Two AA batteries last forever.

Hi Jon,

Microscope shooting can be tricky. I'm still working it out for my 
setup. One thing I have found, which might help, is that setups that 
work well for film sometimes don't for digital. I suspect, though it is 
only a suspicion at this time, is that the greater reflectivity of the 
silicon sensor causes internal reflections in the microscope optical 
path. Sometimes it actually seems easier to use a compact digital rather 
than an SLR.

I really wouldn't have thought that Canon's do better macros than 
Nikon's, if that is what you are saying, even though I am a Canon user 
myself. It just may be that for a variety of reasons the people whose 
work you are seeing who are better at their craft happen to be Canon 
users. I get to play with Canon's, Nikon's, Sony, Pentax, etc and, in 
reality, they are really much of a muchness with differences in user 
interface and handling that make individuals prefer one over the other.

The Sigma's are nice macro lenses. This pics in this article:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=838
were taken with the Sigma 70mm macro.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Jonathan wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>> There are four options that I have used:
>> - closeup filters are cheap (relatively) and allow a normal lens to
>> focus closer
>> - extension tubes that only work on SLRs but also allow a normal lens
>> to focus closer
>> - a dedicated macro lens will focus close and offer great image
>> quality - attach the camera to a microscope
>>
>> I've used the first two with everything from a wideangle zoom to my
>> 100-400mm zoom, with good results. I also have a 100mm macro (Canon
>> f2.8) which is a great lens. And I've been experimenting with the
>> microscope approach for that 'extreme' approach.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
> 
> 
>  Thanks Wayne. I have been wondering what shooting with a microscope would 
> be like. I think it is about time I found out. I can see me getting into 
> this with a whole new enthusiasm. I have seen so many nice macro shots taken 
> with Canon and other fine cameras and lenses. I have been using Nikon for 
> some time not that they are any better, just a bit more expensive. I have 
> seen better pics with Canon than anything I have been able to produce 
> although I do like my new Bigma.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Jon 
> 
> 

Jonathan wrote:

> 
> What would you recommend as a good lens for a Nikon? I just bought a 60mm 
> f/2.8D that shots nice looking pictures but I wanted something closer. I 
> wonder why they call it a Micro-Nikkor. I think you can only get within 8 
> inches. The ratio is 5:1 but I wanted something that can show a larger image 
> or appear to get into that fly's eye.
> 
> J. 
> 
> 

That lens is a 1:1 on 35mm which means that you can get the same size on 
the film as the subject.

Check the switch on the side to see if its full or limited  in the focus 
range.

What you need is extension tubes to get it to focus closer.

Rob wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>>
>> What would you recommend as a good lens for a Nikon? I just bought a
>> 60mm f/2.8D that shots nice looking pictures but I wanted something
>> closer. I wonder why they call it a Micro-Nikkor. I think you can
>> only get within 8 inches. The ratio is 5:1 but I wanted something
>> that can show a larger image or appear to get into that fly's eye.
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>
> That lens is a 1:1 on 35mm which means that you can get the same size
> on the film as the subject.
>
> Check the switch on the side to see if its full or limited  in the
> focus range.
>
> What you need is extension tubes to get it to focus closer.

I plan to buy some very soon. I might order some this week but I am saving 
for a D200 and should have one in a few weeks. I have to do some more 
reading to make sure I get the right tubes. I have not done any research 
yet. Hopefully there isn't that much to them.

J. 

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> Microscope shooting can be tricky. I'm still working it out for my
> setup. One thing I have found, which might help, is that setups that
> work well for film sometimes don't for digital. I suspect, though it
> is only a suspicion at this time, is that the greater reflectivity of
> the silicon sensor causes internal reflections in the microscope
> optical path. Sometimes it actually seems easier to use a compact
> digital rather than an SLR.
>
> I really wouldn't have thought that Canon's do better macros than
> Nikon's, if that is what you are saying, even though I am a Canon user
> myself. It just may be that for a variety of reasons the people whose
> work you are seeing who are better at their craft happen to be Canon
> users. I get to play with Canon's, Nikon's, Sony, Pentax, etc and, in
> reality, they are really much of a muchness with differences in user
> interface and handling that make individuals prefer one over the
> other.
> The Sigma's are nice macro lenses. This pics in this article:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=838
> were taken with the Sigma 70mm macro.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne

 I was saying that the Canon shots were better than anything I have taken 
yet. I don't think one is any better than the other when it comes to two 
great cameras. I have seen some heated threads about which one is best or 
who makes the best glass but I have seen no proof. Nikons just have the 
reputation for costing more. I think the microscope photography will be 
later in the year as I still have much I need before summer ends and I pack 
everything away for the chilling weather here in the N.E.

 I like Sigma and am happy with my 50-500mm and am not afraid to buy more. 
Some of those Nikkors can be a bit cost prohibitive.
>
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
> http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
>
>
>
> Jonathan wrote:
>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>> There are four options that I have used:
>>> - closeup filters are cheap (relatively) and allow a normal lens to
>>> focus closer
>>> - extension tubes that only work on SLRs but also allow a normal
>>> lens to focus closer
>>> - a dedicated macro lens will focus close and offer great image
>>> quality - attach the camera to a microscope
>>>
>>> I've used the first two with everything from a wideangle zoom to my
>>> 100-400mm zoom, with good results. I also have a 100mm macro (Canon
>>> f2.8) which is a great lens. And I've been experimenting with the
>>> microscope approach for that 'extreme' approach.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>
>>
>>  Thanks Wayne. I have been wondering what shooting with a microscope
>> would be like. I think it is about time I found out. I can see me
>> getting into this with a whole new enthusiasm. I have seen so many
>> nice macro shots taken with Canon and other fine cameras and lenses.
>> I have been using Nikon for some time not that they are any better,
>> just a bit more expensive. I have seen better pics with Canon than
>> anything I have been able to produce although I do like my new Bigma.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Jon 

"Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message 
news:f2Vqi.1481$YH3.1445@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> Rob wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What would you recommend as a good lens for a Nikon? I just bought a
>>> 60mm f/2.8D that shots nice looking pictures but I wanted something
>>> closer. I wonder why they call it a Micro-Nikkor. I think you can
>>> only get within 8 inches. The ratio is 5:1 but I wanted something
>>> that can show a larger image or appear to get into that fly's eye.
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That lens is a 1:1 on 35mm which means that you can get the same size
>> on the film as the subject.
>>
>> Check the switch on the side to see if its full or limited  in the
>> focus range.
>>
>> What you need is extension tubes to get it to focus closer.
>
> I plan to buy some very soon. I might order some this week but I am saving 
> for a D200 and should have one in a few weeks. I have to do some more 
> reading to make sure I get the right tubes. I have not done any research 
> yet. Hopefully there isn't that much to them.
>
> J.

All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical connections, 
cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as you will find that MF 
is much better for macro. 

Jonathan wrote:

> 
>  I was saying that the Canon shots were better than anything I have taken 
> yet. I don't think one is any better than the other when it comes to two 
> great cameras. I have seen some heated threads about which one is best or 
> who makes the best glass but I have seen no proof. Nikons just have the 
> reputation for costing more. I think the microscope photography will be 
> later in the year as I still have much I need before summer ends and I pack 
> everything away for the chilling weather here in the N.E.
> 
>  I like Sigma and am happy with my 50-500mm and am not afraid to buy more. 
> Some of those Nikkors can be a bit cost prohibitive.
> 


What you will find is that camera bodies do wear out lenses don't.

Investing in good lenses do have benefits in the long term. This also 
works out cheaper in that you are not replacing lenses when you find the 
limitations of a third party lens.

I have early lenses going back 30 years (300mm) for my Nikon stuff that 
I still use occasionally on my D200.

Cool. I hadn't thought really that you could have been saying the 
Canon's were better, as such.

Good glass and good technique go a long way. I also like the Sigmas, 
though all the lenses I own are Canon.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Jonathan wrote:
>  I was saying that the Canon shots were better than anything I have taken 
> yet. I don't think one is any better than the other when it comes to two 
> great cameras. I have seen some heated threads about which one is best or 
> who makes the best glass but I have seen no proof. Nikons just have the 
> reputation for costing more. I think the microscope photography will be 
> later in the year as I still have much I need before summer ends and I pack 
> everything away for the chilling weather here in the N.E.
> 
>  I like Sigma and am happy with my 50-500mm and am not afraid to buy more. 
> Some of those Nikkors can be a bit cost prohibitive.
>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
>> http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>> Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>>> There are four options that I have used:
>>>> - closeup filters are cheap (relatively) and allow a normal lens to
>>>> focus closer
>>>> - extension tubes that only work on SLRs but also allow a normal
>>>> lens to focus closer
>>>> - a dedicated macro lens will focus close and offer great image
>>>> quality - attach the camera to a microscope
>>>>
>>>> I've used the first two with everything from a wideangle zoom to my
>>>> 100-400mm zoom, with good results. I also have a 100mm macro (Canon
>>>> f2.8) which is a great lens. And I've been experimenting with the
>>>> microscope approach for that 'extreme' approach.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>
>>>  Thanks Wayne. I have been wondering what shooting with a microscope
>>> would be like. I think it is about time I found out. I can see me
>>> getting into this with a whole new enthusiasm. I have seen so many
>>> nice macro shots taken with Canon and other fine cameras and lenses.
>>> I have been using Nikon for some time not that they are any better,
>>> just a bit more expensive. I have seen better pics with Canon than
>>> anything I have been able to produce although I do like my new Bigma.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> Jon 
> 
> 

Rob wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>>
>>  I was saying that the Canon shots were better than anything I have
>> taken yet. I don't think one is any better than the other when it
>> comes to two great cameras. I have seen some heated threads about
>> which one is best or who makes the best glass but I have seen no
>> proof. Nikons just have the reputation for costing more. I think the
>> microscope photography will be later in the year as I still have
>> much I need before summer ends and I pack everything away for the
>> chilling weather here in the N.E. I like Sigma and am happy with my 
>> 50-500mm and am not afraid to buy
>> more. Some of those Nikkors can be a bit cost prohibitive.
>>
>
>
> What you will find is that camera bodies do wear out lenses don't.
>
> Investing in good lenses do have benefits in the long term. This also
> works out cheaper in that you are not replacing lenses when you find
> the limitations of a third party lens.
>
> I have early lenses going back 30 years (300mm) for my Nikon stuff
> that I still use occasionally on my D200.

What about the weight? I have in my hand an AF NIKKOR 70-210 1:4 I bought in 
1987 that is very cumbersome and noisy that I will probably never use again. 
I have a 50mm 1:1.8 that I will most likely keep on the shelf that I 
replaced with a 50mm 1:1.4D. I can't imagine how heavy your 300mm is.

Jon 

"Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
news:o_Yqi.1487$YH3.591@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> What about the weight? I have in my hand an AF NIKKOR 70-210 1:4 I bought
in
> 1987 that is very cumbersome and noisy that I will probably never use
again.
> I have a 50mm 1:1.8 that I will most likely keep on the shelf that I
> replaced with a 50mm 1:1.4D. I can't imagine how heavy your 300mm is.

I fail to see how a 50mm lens is a satisfactory replacement for a 300mm lens
regardless of weight. That unfortunately is the penalty that must be paid IF
you want to take long shots.

IF a 50mm lens does all you need, then you are lucky. Others simply have
different requirements!

MrT.

Pete D wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
> news:f2Vqi.1481$YH3.1445@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What would you recommend as a good lens for a Nikon? I just bought
>>>> a 60mm f/2.8D that shots nice looking pictures but I wanted
>>>> something closer. I wonder why they call it a Micro-Nikkor. I
>>>> think you can only get within 8 inches. The ratio is 5:1 but I
>>>> wanted something that can show a larger image or appear to get
>>>> into that fly's eye. J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That lens is a 1:1 on 35mm which means that you can get the same
>>> size on the film as the subject.
>>>
>>> Check the switch on the side to see if its full or limited  in the
>>> focus range.
>>>
>>> What you need is extension tubes to get it to focus closer.
>>
>> I plan to buy some very soon. I might order some this week but I am
>> saving for a D200 and should have one in a few weeks. I have to do
>> some more reading to make sure I get the right tubes. I have not
>> done any research yet. Hopefully there isn't that much to them.
>>
>> J.
>
> All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical connections,
> cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as you will find
> that MF is much better for macro.

Thanks Pete.
 I just looked at some camera sites and found a set I will be ordering 
today. Did I waste money on the 60mm micro if I can use these tubes on other 
lenses I have like a 50mm or a 24 mm? I have a 1+2+4+ close up filter set 
that I have used on occasion but it is a cheap Quantaray brand.

Jon 

>>> J.
>>
>> All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical connections,
>> cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as you will find
>> that MF is much better for macro.
>
> Thanks Pete.
> I just looked at some camera sites and found a set I will be ordering 
> today. Did I waste money on the 60mm micro if I can use these tubes on 
> other lenses I have like a 50mm or a 24 mm? I have a 1+2+4+ close up 
> filter set that I have used on occasion but it is a cheap Quantaray brand.
>
> Jon

For the shooting I do I prefer something a bit longer and have gone for the 
90mm Tamron, I also use the Sigma 70-300mm macro with a 21mm tube and that 
give a pretty good resilt at 200mm and gives a fair amount of working room 
and does not disturb the bugs too much.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/401681266_ace6ceea6a_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/401266672_21563ce9d0_o.jpg 

Mr.T wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
> news:o_Yqi.1487$YH3.591@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>> What about the weight? I have in my hand an AF NIKKOR 70-210 1:4 I
>> bought in 1987 that is very cumbersome and noisy that I will
>> probably never use again. I have a 50mm 1:1.8 that I will most
>> likely keep on the shelf that I replaced with a 50mm 1:1.4D. I can't
>> imagine how heavy your 300mm is.
>
> I fail to see how a 50mm lens is a satisfactory replacement for a
> 300mm lens regardless of weight. That unfortunately is the penalty
> that must be paid IF you want to take long shots.
>
> IF a 50mm lens does all you need, then you are lucky. Others simply
> have different requirements!
>
> MrT.

 I was referring to old lenses and any difference in weight from the newer 
ones. I was wondering how much different your older 300mm would be compared 
to a new one. Would here be a substantial weight difference. My comparison 
was with my old 70-210mm lens and a newer one being made of plastic and a 
lot lighter. I just added the fact that I also had an old 50mm that I 
replaced with a newer one that shows better colors and has a D while the 
older one does not.

 In 1987 a 50mm and the 70-210 zoom was all I needed as I was younger then 
and spent less time on shooting. Now I have a 50-500 Sigma that is quite 
heavy and I am more interested in shooting rather than doing what others are 
while I hold the camera  ;)

Jon. 

Pete D wrote:
>>>> J.
>>>
>>> All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical
>>> connections, cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as
>>> you will find that MF is much better for macro.
>>
>> Thanks Pete.
>> I just looked at some camera sites and found a set I will be ordering
>> today. Did I waste money on the 60mm micro if I can use these tubes
>> on other lenses I have like a 50mm or a 24 mm? I have a 1+2+4+ close
>> up filter set that I have used on occasion but it is a cheap
>> Quantaray brand. Jon
>
> For the shooting I do I prefer something a bit longer and have gone
> for the 90mm Tamron, I also use the Sigma 70-300mm macro with a 21mm
> tube and that give a pretty good resilt at 200mm and gives a fair
> amount of working room and does not disturb the bugs too much.
>
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/401681266_ace6ceea6a_o.jpg
>
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/401266672_21563ce9d0_o.jpg

 Great shots. What my question would be is do you need a "macro" lens or 
would any lens work the same when you use tubes? I have a Nikon 70-300 that 
is not a 'Macro' so what difference would the results show?

 Thanks.

Jon 

Jonathan wrote:

> Rob wrote:
> 
>>Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I was saying that the Canon shots were better than anything I have
>>>taken yet. I don't think one is any better than the other when it
>>>comes to two great cameras. I have seen some heated threads about
>>>which one is best or who makes the best glass but I have seen no
>>>proof. Nikons just have the reputation for costing more. I think the
>>>microscope photography will be later in the year as I still have
>>>much I need before summer ends and I pack everything away for the
>>>chilling weather here in the N.E. I like Sigma and am happy with my 
>>>50-500mm and am not afraid to buy
>>>more. Some of those Nikkors can be a bit cost prohibitive.
>>>
>>
>>
>>What you will find is that camera bodies do wear out lenses don't.
>>
>>Investing in good lenses do have benefits in the long term. This also
>>works out cheaper in that you are not replacing lenses when you find
>>the limitations of a third party lens.
>>
>>I have early lenses going back 30 years (300mm) for my Nikon stuff
>>that I still use occasionally on my D200.
> 
> 
> What about the weight? I have in my hand an AF NIKKOR 70-210 1:4 I bought in 
> 1987 that is very cumbersome and noisy that I will probably never use again. 
> I have a 50mm 1:1.8 that I will most likely keep on the shelf that I 
> replaced with a 50mm 1:1.4D. I can't imagine how heavy your 300mm is.
> 
> Jon 
> 
> 

Ah yes but that's not what was intended, did you note that "I still use 
occasionally" bit, fair enough modern lenses are lighter, but do the old 
lenses which we have still perform - yes, most likely your 70-210 is a 
sharp lens and has served you over many years, I would say if you had 
bought a cheap 70-210 Vivitar it would not have been a quality lens and 
you would have dumped it, like I said if you buy good glass it will 
serve you for many years.

I have bought Vivitar, Tamron, Kiron, but my Nikkors are still around 
and still perform.

(BTW I have a Nikon collection - all the F series, all with motor drives 
so my old lenses go there.)

Jonathan wrote:

> Pete D wrote:
> 
>>>>>J.
>>>>
>>>>All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical
>>>>connections, cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as
>>>>you will find that MF is much better for macro.
>>>
>>>Thanks Pete.
>>>I just looked at some camera sites and found a set I will be ordering
>>>today. Did I waste money on the 60mm micro if I can use these tubes
>>>on other lenses I have like a 50mm or a 24 mm? I have a 1+2+4+ close
>>>up filter set that I have used on occasion but it is a cheap
>>>Quantaray brand. Jon
>>
>>For the shooting I do I prefer something a bit longer and have gone
>>for the 90mm Tamron, I also use the Sigma 70-300mm macro with a 21mm
>>tube and that give a pretty good resilt at 200mm and gives a fair
>>amount of working room and does not disturb the bugs too much.
>>
>>http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/401681266_ace6ceea6a_o.jpg
>>
>>http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/401266672_21563ce9d0_o.jpg
> 
> 
>  Great shots. What my question would be is do you need a "macro" lens or 
> would any lens work the same when you use tubes? I have a Nikon 70-300 that 
> is not a 'Macro' so what difference would the results show?
> 
>  Thanks.
> 
> Jon 
> 
> 

Do you know the difference between a true Macro lens and the Macro 
position on a zoom lens (Micro Nikkor in Nikon terms)?

This is what you are asking in terms of the above. If you placed a tube 
on your 70-300 is the same as using the macro position on a like zoom 
lens. This is still not a true macro lens and will not give the same 
results as a macro lens with a tube.

Rob wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> Pete D wrote:
>>
>>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical
>>>>> connections, cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as
>>>>> you will find that MF is much better for macro.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Pete.
>>>> I just looked at some camera sites and found a set I will be
>>>> ordering today. Did I waste money on the 60mm micro if I can use
>>>> these tubes on other lenses I have like a 50mm or a 24 mm? I have
>>>> a 1+2+4+ close up filter set that I have used on occasion but it
>>>> is a cheap Quantaray brand. Jon
>>>
>>> For the shooting I do I prefer something a bit longer and have gone
>>> for the 90mm Tamron, I also use the Sigma 70-300mm macro with a 21mm
>>> tube and that give a pretty good resilt at 200mm and gives a fair
>>> amount of working room and does not disturb the bugs too much.
>>>
>>> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/401681266_ace6ceea6a_o.jpg
>>>
>>> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/401266672_21563ce9d0_o.jpg
>>
>>
>>  Great shots. What my question would be is do you need a "macro"
>> lens or would any lens work the same when you use tubes? I have a
>> Nikon 70-300 that is not a 'Macro' so what difference would the
>> results show? Thanks.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>
> Do you know the difference between a true Macro lens and the Macro
> position on a zoom lens (Micro Nikkor in Nikon terms)?

This is something that I do not know.
>
> This is what you are asking in terms of the above. If you placed a
> tube on your 70-300 is the same as using the macro position on a like
> zoom lens. This is still not a true macro lens and will not give the
> same results as a macro lens with a tube.

 I will have to do more reading.

Thanks.

Jon 

Rita � Berkowitz wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> Great shots. What my question would be is do you need a "macro" lens
>> or would any lens work the same when you use tubes? I have a Nikon
>> 70-300 that is not a 'Macro' so what difference would the results
>> show?
>
> I would suggest picking up a 50/1.4 or a 50/1.8 and a set of Kenko
> tubes. The 50mm is a great inexpensive lens that is so versatile you
> can use it for macro with tubes or use it as is for great available
> and low light photography.  The 70-300 is a slow lens to start with
> and will not give great results at close focus.  Once you get a 50
> you will be spoiled by its great performance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita

Hi Rita.

 I wanted to mention that I liked that shot of the inch worm and wonder if 
you have more close up shots to show. I have the 50mm lenses and have used 
them with a set of close up filters that worked ok. I will be ordering the 
tubes today as you suggest and I know I will get better results. Thank you 
very much for your lesson.

Jon.

Rita � Berkowitz wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>>> I would suggest picking up a 50/1.4 or a 50/1.8 and a set of Kenko
>>> tubes. The 50mm is a great inexpensive lens that is so versatile you
>>> can use it for macro with tubes or use it as is for great available
>>> and low light photography.  The 70-300 is a slow lens to start with
>>> and will not give great results at close focus.  Once you get a 50
>>> you will be spoiled by its great performance.
>>
>> I wanted to mention that I liked that shot of the inch worm and
>> wonder if you have more close up shots to show. I have the 50mm
>> lenses and have used them with a set of close up filters that worked
>> ok. I will be ordering the tubes today as you suggest and I know I
>> will get better results. Thank you very much for your lesson.
>
> While not the greatest, here is an uncropped 3:1 handheld macro using
> direct sunlight with no flash.  Handheld macro can be really
> challenging at this level of magnification as the slightest movement
> can make or break the shot.
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/too_shy.htm>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita

That isn't bad. It seems I can't hold a camera steady any more so if I tried 
that there would be nothing to see. How far away were you from the bug? 

"Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message 
news:Q91ri.1498$YH3.1032@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> Rob wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> Pete D wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical
>>>>>> connections, cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as
>>>>>> you will find that MF is much better for macro.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Pete.
>>>>> I just looked at some camera sites and found a set I will be
>>>>> ordering today. Did I waste money on the 60mm micro if I can use
>>>>> these tubes on other lenses I have like a 50mm or a 24 mm? I have
>>>>> a 1+2+4+ close up filter set that I have used on occasion but it
>>>>> is a cheap Quantaray brand. Jon
>>>>
>>>> For the shooting I do I prefer something a bit longer and have gone
>>>> for the 90mm Tamron, I also use the Sigma 70-300mm macro with a 21mm
>>>> tube and that give a pretty good resilt at 200mm and gives a fair
>>>> amount of working room and does not disturb the bugs too much.
>>>>
>>>> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/401681266_ace6ceea6a_o.jpg
>>>>
>>>> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/401266672_21563ce9d0_o.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>  Great shots. What my question would be is do you need a "macro"
>>> lens or would any lens work the same when you use tubes? I have a
>>> Nikon 70-300 that is not a 'Macro' so what difference would the
>>> results show? Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you know the difference between a true Macro lens and the Macro
>> position on a zoom lens (Micro Nikkor in Nikon terms)?
>
> This is something that I do not know.
>>
>> This is what you are asking in terms of the above. If you placed a
>> tube on your 70-300 is the same as using the macro position on a like
>> zoom lens. This is still not a true macro lens and will not give the
>> same results as a macro lens with a tube.
>
> I will have to do more reading.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jon

A true macro is much better for true macro, most lenses will be okay with 
tubes but will still not allow the truly macro. 

Pete D wrote:

> "Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message 
> news:Q91ri.1498$YH3.1032@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> 
>>Rob wrote:
>>
>>>Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pete D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>J.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical
>>>>>>>connections, cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as
>>>>>>>you will find that MF is much better for macro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks Pete.
>>>>>>I just looked at some camera sites and found a set I will be
>>>>>>ordering today. Did I waste money on the 60mm micro if I can use
>>>>>>these tubes on other lenses I have like a 50mm or a 24 mm? I have
>>>>>>a 1+2+4+ close up filter set that I have used on occasion but it
>>>>>>is a cheap Quantaray brand. Jon
>>>>>
>>>>>For the shooting I do I prefer something a bit longer and have gone
>>>>>for the 90mm Tamron, I also use the Sigma 70-300mm macro with a 21mm
>>>>>tube and that give a pretty good resilt at 200mm and gives a fair
>>>>>amount of working room and does not disturb the bugs too much.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/401681266_ace6ceea6a_o.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/401266672_21563ce9d0_o.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great shots. What my question would be is do you need a "macro"
>>>>lens or would any lens work the same when you use tubes? I have a
>>>>Nikon 70-300 that is not a 'Macro' so what difference would the
>>>>results show? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>Jon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you know the difference between a true Macro lens and the Macro
>>>position on a zoom lens (Micro Nikkor in Nikon terms)?
>>
>>This is something that I do not know.
>>
>>>This is what you are asking in terms of the above. If you placed a
>>>tube on your 70-300 is the same as using the macro position on a like
>>>zoom lens. This is still not a true macro lens and will not give the
>>>same results as a macro lens with a tube.
>>
>>I will have to do more reading.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Jon
> 
> 
> A true macro is much better for true macro, most lenses will be okay with 
> tubes but will still not allow the truly macro. 
> 
> 

Hey Pete that's not what makes it a true macro. :)

Rita � Berkowitz wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> That isn't bad. It seems I can't hold a camera steady any more so if
>> I tried that there would be nothing to see. How far away were you
>> from the bug?
>
> I'm guessing about an inch.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita

So what was lacking is the DOF? 

"Rita � Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:13aov963025rf83@news.supernews.com...
> I would suggest picking up a 50/1.4 or a 50/1.8 and a set of Kenko tubes.
> The 50mm is a great inexpensive lens that is so versatile you can use it
for
> macro with tubes or use it as is for great available and low light
> photography.  The 70-300 is a slow lens to start with and will not give
> great results at close focus.  Once you get a 50 you will be spoiled by
its
> great performance.

Yes, IMO everyone should have a standard 50mm fast lens in their kit. I
would never bother using mine for macro work though. There are far better
options.
In fact I hardly ever use my 50mm macro lens except for copy work. A longer
focal length flat field macro lens is a better choice for live subjects IMO.

MrT.

"Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
news:Gb_qi.1494$YH3.50@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> >> What about the weight? I have in my hand an AF NIKKOR 70-210 1:4 I
> >> bought in 1987 that is very cumbersome and noisy that I will
> >> probably never use again. I have a 50mm 1:1.8 that I will most
> >> likely keep on the shelf that I replaced with a 50mm 1:1.4D. I can't
> >> imagine how heavy your 300mm is.
> >
> > I fail to see how a 50mm lens is a satisfactory replacement for a
> > 300mm lens regardless of weight. That unfortunately is the penalty
> > that must be paid IF you want to take long shots.
> >
> > IF a 50mm lens does all you need, then you are lucky. Others simply
> > have different requirements!
>
>  I was referring to old lenses and any difference in weight from the newer
> ones. I was wondering how much different your older 300mm would be
compared
> to a new one. Would here be a substantial weight difference.

Not that much. The laws of physics haven't changed, although materials and
construction have.
The biggest difference is usually the maximum aperture, which really affects
size and weight at the long end.

The actual weight figures for each manufacturers lenses are usually readily
available BTW.


>My comparison
> was with my old 70-210mm lens and a newer one being made of plastic and a
> lot lighter. I just added the fact that I also had an old 50mm that I
> replaced with a newer one that shows better colors and has a D while the
> older one does not.

Yes, plastic does reduce weight a bit, but the major weight in any long,
fast lens is the glass itself.
Obviously not so much with a 50mm lens.
(and obviously yours is not a f1.2 :-)

 MrT.

"Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
news:46ac73c0$1_1@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
>I would say if you had bought a cheap 70-210 Vivitar it would not
>have been a quality lens and you would have dumped it,

The Vivatar series One lenses were not so bad. Much better in many cases
than the cheaper lenses from Nikon or Canon these days.
Nearly all their kit zooms for example.

>like I said if you buy good glass it will
> serve you for many years.
>
> I have bought Vivitar, Tamron, Kiron, but my Nikkors are still around
> and still perform.

Yes, just a shame you can't readily use the old lens mounts on the new
camera bodies :-(
Obsolescence is still a bitch.
(and yes I know there are adapters in some cases)

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
> "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
> news:46ac73c0$1_1@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> 

> 
> 
> Yes, just a shame you can't readily use the old lens mounts on the new
> camera bodies :-(
> Obsolescence is still a bitch.
> (and yes I know there are adapters in some cases)
> 
> MrT.
> 
> 

Nikon is very backward compatible. They just have to be AI mts which go 
back 35-40 years.

"Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message 
news:46ad0177_5@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> Pete D wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message 
>> news:Q91ri.1498$YH3.1032@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>
>>>Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jonathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Pete D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>J.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All you need is a set of three tubes that have electrical
>>>>>>>>connections, cheaper ones may not do AF but that is not needed as
>>>>>>>>you will find that MF is much better for macro.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks Pete.
>>>>>>>I just looked at some camera sites and found a set I will be
>>>>>>>ordering today. Did I waste money on the 60mm micro if I can use
>>>>>>>these tubes on other lenses I have like a 50mm or a 24 mm? I have
>>>>>>>a 1+2+4+ close up filter set that I have used on occasion but it
>>>>>>>is a cheap Quantaray brand. Jon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For the shooting I do I prefer something a bit longer and have gone
>>>>>>for the 90mm Tamron, I also use the Sigma 70-300mm macro with a 21mm
>>>>>>tube and that give a pretty good resilt at 200mm and gives a fair
>>>>>>amount of working room and does not disturb the bugs too much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/401681266_ace6ceea6a_o.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/401266672_21563ce9d0_o.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great shots. What my question would be is do you need a "macro"
>>>>>lens or would any lens work the same when you use tubes? I have a
>>>>>Nikon 70-300 that is not a 'Macro' so what difference would the
>>>>>results show? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you know the difference between a true Macro lens and the Macro
>>>>position on a zoom lens (Micro Nikkor in Nikon terms)?
>>>
>>>This is something that I do not know.
>>>
>>>>This is what you are asking in terms of the above. If you placed a
>>>>tube on your 70-300 is the same as using the macro position on a like
>>>>zoom lens. This is still not a true macro lens and will not give the
>>>>same results as a macro lens with a tube.
>>>
>>>I will have to do more reading.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>Jon
>>
>>
>> A true macro is much better for true macro, most lenses will be okay with 
>> tubes but will still not allow the truly macro.
>
> Hey Pete that's not what makes it a true macro. :)

Macro, micro, mini, maxi I am not going through this again, Google it. 

"Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message 
news:46ad552d$1_9@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> Mr.T wrote:
>> "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
>> news:46ac73c0$1_1@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Yes, just a shame you can't readily use the old lens mounts on the new
>> camera bodies :-(
>> Obsolescence is still a bitch.
>> (and yes I know there are adapters in some cases)
>>
>> MrT.
>>
>>
>
> Nikon is very backward compatible. They just have to be AI mts which go 
> back 35-40 years.

My Pentaxes work beautifully with my 40 year old M42 Takumar lenses. 

Mr.T wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
> news:Gb_qi.1494$YH3.50@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>> What about the weight? I have in my hand an AF NIKKOR 70-210 1:4 I
>>>> bought in 1987 that is very cumbersome and noisy that I will
>>>> probably never use again. I have a 50mm 1:1.8 that I will most
>>>> likely keep on the shelf that I replaced with a 50mm 1:1.4D. I
>>>> can't imagine how heavy your 300mm is.
>>>
>>> I fail to see how a 50mm lens is a satisfactory replacement for a
>>> 300mm lens regardless of weight. That unfortunately is the penalty
>>> that must be paid IF you want to take long shots.
>>>
>>> IF a 50mm lens does all you need, then you are lucky. Others simply
>>> have different requirements!
>>
>>  I was referring to old lenses and any difference in weight from the
>> newer ones. I was wondering how much different your older 300mm
>> would be compared to a new one. Would here be a substantial weight
>> difference.
>
> Not that much. The laws of physics haven't changed, although
> materials and construction have.
> The biggest difference is usually the maximum aperture, which really
> affects size and weight at the long end.
>
> The actual weight figures for each manufacturers lenses are usually
> readily available BTW.
>
>
>> My comparison
>> was with my old 70-210mm lens and a newer one being made of plastic
>> and a lot lighter. I just added the fact that I also had an old 50mm
>> that I replaced with a newer one that shows better colors and has a
>> D while the older one does not.
>
> Yes, plastic does reduce weight a bit, but the major weight in any
> long, fast lens is the glass itself.
> Obviously not so much with a 50mm lens.
> (and obviously yours is not a f1.2 :-)
>
> MrT.

As I said I was going by the big difference in weight between the old 70-210 
and new 70-300. The newer lens is quite noticeably lighter.

Jon 

>>>
>>>
>>> A true macro is much better for true macro, most lenses will be okay 
>>> with tubes but will still not allow the truly macro.
>>
>> Hey Pete that's not what makes it a true macro. :)
>
> Macro, micro, mini, maxi I am not going through this again, Google it.

Just collected the mail, nice new Tamron 90mm macro, my first Tamron lens 
actually. 

On Jul 30, 5:40 pm, "Pete D" <Doug...@moron.com> wrote:
> >>> A true macro is much better for true macro, most lenses will be okay
> >>> with tubes but will still not allow the truly macro.
>
> >> Hey Pete that's not what makes it a true macro. :)
>
> > Macro, micro, mini, maxi I am not going through this again, Google it.
>
> Just collected the mail, nice new Tamron 90mm macro, my first Tamron lens
> actually.

Congrats!  They are an awesome macro lens.  I have been using one for
a couple of years and have no complaints... well maybe the AF is a
little slow, but I shoot all macro using MF anyway.

"Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
news:tkgri.1529$YH3.73@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> As I said I was going by the big difference in weight between the old
70-210
> and new 70-300. The newer lens is quite noticeably lighter.

And are the maximum apertures the same? You still haven't told us.
(I'm betting not given the 70-300 is probably one of the cheap kit lenses)

But yes the cheap plastic lenses are usually lighter, most of us here would
trade a little weight for better optical performance though.

MrT.

"Pete D" <Doug.is@moron.com> wrote in message
news:46ad86ce$0$3234$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
> >> Yes, just a shame you can't readily use the old lens mounts on the new
> >> camera bodies :-(
> >> Obsolescence is still a bitch.
> >> (and yes I know there are adapters in some cases)
> >
> > Nikon is very backward compatible. They just have to be AI mts which go
> > back 35-40 years.

OK Canon is a bitch! Olympus is a bitch! :-)
But I don't think the old Nikkors allow full aperture control on new bodies
do they?
Back to stoppped down shooting, which Canon and Olympus can do with an
adapter anyway.

And I'm pretty sure AI mounts don't go back quite 40 years, but I couldn't
be bothered checking.


> My Pentaxes work beautifully with my 40 year old M42 Takumar lenses.

Ah yes. M42 manual lenses will work on almost anything. I have adapters for
both Canon and Olympus.
Are you claiming an advantage for full manual lenses then? :-)
(I'm not a big fan of working at the stopped down aperture myself)

MrT.

Rita � Berkowitz wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>>>> That isn't bad. It seems I can't hold a camera steady any more so
>>>> if I tried that there would be nothing to see. How far away were
>>>> you from the bug?
>>>
>>> I'm guessing about an inch.
>>
>> So what was lacking is the DOF?
>
> DOF is very thin as one would expect but is useable with a steady
> hand.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita

 The photo looks good. I hope to get my tube set this week. I like your inch 
worm shot. I want to try to get some pics of the fireflies that are starting 
to appear around here.

Jon. 

Mr.T wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
> news:tkgri.1529$YH3.73@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>> As I said I was going by the big difference in weight between the
>> old 70-210 and new 70-300. The newer lens is quite noticeably
>> lighter.
>
> And are the maximum apertures the same? You still haven't told us.
> (I'm betting not given the 70-300 is probably one of the cheap kit
> lenses)
>
> But yes the cheap plastic lenses are usually lighter, most of us here
> would trade a little weight for better optical performance though.
>
> MrT.

 Here is the new one

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1928#

 This is the old heavy one

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF70210mm/index.htm

 Jon.

 

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Pete D" <Doug.is@moron.com> wrote:
>> >> Yes, just a shame you can't readily use the old lens mounts on the new
>> >> camera bodies :-(
>> >> Obsolescence is still a bitch.
>> >> (and yes I know there are adapters in some cases)
>> >
>> > Nikon is very backward compatible. They just have to be AI mts which go
>> > back 35-40 years.
>
>OK Canon is a bitch! Olympus is a bitch! :-)
>But I don't think the old Nikkors allow full aperture control on new bodies
>do they?
>Back to stoppped down shooting, which Canon and Olympus can do with an
>adapter anyway.

Old Nikkors on new bodies will do whatever the old
Nikkor would do on an old body.  That includes automatic
aperture actuation on F-Mount lenses as old as 1959.

That's 48 years...

>And I'm pretty sure AI mounts don't go back quite 40 years, but I couldn't
>be bothered checking.

Aperture Indexing is a different beastie, and is 30
years old now.  AI affects metering (which is of
questionable value on a digital camera anyway), not the
use of "full aperture control".

Here's a simple chart:

 1959   F-Mount   (Auto Aperture)
 1977   AI        (Meter coupling, servo coupling, and speed index)
 1978   E Series  (Signal notch)
 1979   AI-S
 1983   F3AF      (Electrical contacts)
 1986   AF        (Screw driven AF)
 1988   P Series
 1992   AF-I
 1993   AF-D
 1996   AF-S      (Electric AF)
 1996   DX        (Digital sensor size)
 2000   G         (No aperture ring)

>> My Pentaxes work beautifully with my 40 year old M42 Takumar lenses.
>
>Ah yes. M42 manual lenses will work on almost anything. I have adapters for
>both Canon and Olympus.

Do they have _any_ automatic functions, even auto
aperture?

>Are you claiming an advantage for full manual lenses then? :-)
>(I'm not a big fan of working at the stopped down aperture myself)

I do use a couple of different pre-AI Nikon lenses, and
while they obviously do not have auto focus, they do
have auto aperture.  The meter coupling does not work,
so exposure has to be set by taking a shot and looking
at a histogram to see what adjustments should be made
(which is far more accurate than using a through the
lense reflective light meter, and is the technique that
I prefer using even with lenses that are coupled).

I've also played with a few old lenses (m42, etc) that
require manual stopdown use.  They are fine for macro
work, only.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

Rita � Berkowitz wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> The photo looks good. I hope to get my tube set this week. I like
>> your inch worm shot. I want to try to get some pics of the fireflies
>> that are starting to appear around here.
>
> Great!  Have fun.  Fireflies are pretty neat to try to photograph.  I
> have yet to master the technique of shooting one in flight.  God luck.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita

I plan on catching a few and placing them in captivity first. Do you plan on 
more macro photography? There aren't many other bugs in my area that seem 
interesting unless I do a field trip.

Jon 

"Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
news:qguri.12$Qr.10@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> >> As I said I was going by the big difference in weight between the
> >> old 70-210 and new 70-300. The newer lens is quite noticeably
> >> lighter.
> >
> > And are the maximum apertures the same? You still haven't told us.
> > (I'm betting not given the 70-300 is probably one of the cheap kit
> > lenses)
> >
> > But yes the cheap plastic lenses are usually lighter, most of us here
> > would trade a little weight for better optical performance though.
>
>  Here is the new one
>
> http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1928#
>
>  This is the old heavy one
>
>
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor
/AF70210mm/index.htm
>


So you *are* trying to compare an 70-210 F4 lens with a 70-300 f5.6 lens
right?
The 80-200 f2.8 is heavier again, does that answer your question?

BTW if weight is your prime consideration, probably better to buy one of the
long zoom compact digital cameras instead.

MrT.

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87wswhsap8.fld@apaflo.com...
> >And I'm pretty sure AI mounts don't go back quite 40 years, but I
couldn't
> >be bothered checking.
>
> Aperture Indexing is a different beastie, and is 30
> years old now.

I still have lenses I bought further back than that though.

>AI affects metering (which is of
> questionable value on a digital camera anyway), not the
> use of "full aperture control".

You really think metering is of "questionable value on a digital camera",
why?


> >> My Pentaxes work beautifully with my 40 year old M42 Takumar lenses.
> >
> >Ah yes. M42 manual lenses will work on almost anything. I have adapters
for
> >both Canon and Olympus.
>
> Do they have _any_ automatic functions, even auto
> aperture?

Many/most M42 lenses have no auto anything on any camera, so no change
there.


 > I do use a couple of different pre-AI Nikon lenses, and
> while they obviously do not have auto focus, they do
> have auto aperture.  The meter coupling does not work,
> so exposure has to be set by taking a shot and looking
> at a histogram to see what adjustments should be made
> (which is far more accurate than using a through the
> lense reflective light meter, and is the technique that
> I prefer using even with lenses that are coupled).

Sure it works if you have plenty of time. Rules out proper exposure on most
action shots though.


> I've also played with a few old lenses (m42, etc) that
> require manual stopdown use.  They are fine for macro
> work, only.

Even then they are a pain trying to focus stopped down, or remembering to
switch back and forwards.
In fact since macro work is mostly at small apertures I find it's a worse
pain than using a telephoto for action shots. In those cases I just use it
wide open.
(or maybe one stop down when necessary)

MrT.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Aperture Indexing is a different beastie, and is 30
>> years old now.
>
>I still have lenses I bought further back than that though.

The point is that auto aperture on pre-AI lenses works
just fine on Nikon digital cameras, making those lenses
quite useful.

>>AI affects metering (which is of
>> questionable value on a digital camera anyway), not the
>> use of "full aperture control".
>
>You really think metering is of "questionable value on a digital camera",
>why?

Absolutely.  "Metering" is hardly a precise method of
exposure control when you measure reflected light.  It
provides a ballpark value (which totally depends on the
metered scene having 18% reflectance).

With a modern Nikon camera it is relatively easy to be
within less than 1/3rd of an fstop.  Using the
histograph display as a start, and then by switching to
the LCD's "blink on over exposure" display provides a
precisely correct exposure.

>> >> My Pentaxes work beautifully with my 40 year old M42 Takumar lenses.
>> >
>> >Ah yes. M42 manual lenses will work on almost anything. I have adapters for
>> >both Canon and Olympus.
>>
>> Do they have _any_ automatic functions, even auto
>> aperture?
>
>Many/most M42 lenses have no auto anything on any camera, so no change
>there.

Most have auto aperture when used on a camera body
designed for them.  But even that doesn't work when they
are mounted on a recent vintage camera.  The point of
course is that those lenses, unlike the pre-AI Nikon F
mount lenses (never mind the Nikon AI lenses!), are
barely useable and of questionable value.

>> I do use a couple of different pre-AI Nikon lenses, and
>> while they obviously do not have auto focus, they do
>> have auto aperture.  The meter coupling does not work,
>> so exposure has to be set by taking a shot and looking
>> at a histogram to see what adjustments should be made
>> (which is far more accurate than using a through the
>> lense reflective light meter, and is the technique that
>> I prefer using even with lenses that are coupled).
>
>Sure it works if you have plenty of time. Rules out proper exposure on most
>action shots though.

Not true.  First it doesn't take much time, and second
it is far more accurate that using a reflected light
meter in any case.

It might rule out shots where the lighting is changing
rapidly.  But even then that would only be true if the
change is rather extreme simply because otherwise it
just means the margin for error is about equal to using
a reflected light meter anyway!

>> I've also played with a few old lenses (m42, etc) that
>> require manual stopdown use.  They are fine for macro
>> work, only.
>
>Even then they are a pain trying to focus stopped down, or remembering to
>switch back and forwards.

Who focuses stopped down?

Regardless, manual aperture control is typical for using
a bellows anyway, hence m42 lenses are no different than
anything else.

>In fact since macro work is mostly at small apertures I find it's a worse
>pain than using a telephoto for action shots. In those cases I just use it
>wide open.
>(or maybe one stop down when necessary)

Auto aperture is nice.  Other than for macro work I have
no interest in lenses without that feature.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

Mr.T wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
> news:qguri.12$Qr.10@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>> As I said I was going by the big difference in weight between the
>>>> old 70-210 and new 70-300. The newer lens is quite noticeably
>>>> lighter.
>>>
>>> And are the maximum apertures the same? You still haven't told us.
>>> (I'm betting not given the 70-300 is probably one of the cheap kit
>>> lenses)
>>>
>>> But yes the cheap plastic lenses are usually lighter, most of us
>>> here would trade a little weight for better optical performance
>>> though.
>>
>>  Here is the new one
>>
>> http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1928#
>>
>>  This is the old heavy one
>>
>>
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor
> /AF70210mm/index.htm
>>
>
>
> So you *are* trying to compare an 70-210 F4 lens with a 70-300 f5.6
> lens right?


 I was only commenting on the weight difference.

> The 80-200 f2.8 is heavier again, does that answer your question?

 What was the question anyway?

> BTW if weight is your prime consideration, probably better to buy one
> of the long zoom compact digital cameras instead.
>
> MrT.

 Weight is not much of a consideration. I was just curious if your older 
lens was any heavier than the newer ones that's all. I have many P&S cameras 
and lenses of many qualities. I think I mentioned I have a Sigma 50-500mm 
f4-6.3 EX APO RF HSM.  My first SLR was a Nikon N2020 I bought in 1986. I 
have had a D100 for a few years and will be buying a D200 next month.

Jon 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87odhsac3b.fld@apaflo.com...
> >>AI affects metering (which is of
> >> questionable value on a digital camera anyway), not the
> >> use of "full aperture control".
> >
> >You really think metering is of "questionable value on a digital camera",
> >why?
>
> Absolutely.  "Metering" is hardly a precise method of
> exposure control when you measure reflected light.  It
> provides a ballpark value (which totally depends on the
> metered scene having 18% reflectance).

So no need for the "digital camera" qualifier. However metering IS still
useful for those who know what it represents.

> With a modern Nikon camera it is relatively easy to be
> within less than 1/3rd of an fstop.  Using the
> histograph display as a start, and then by switching to
> the LCD's "blink on over exposure" display provides a
> precisely correct exposure.

And what do you do then if your subject/photo op is now gone forever?
Cry? :-)

Of course IF the histogram display was real time in the viewfinder without
obstructing the viewfinder image or otherwise being too distracting, then it
might actually serve the same purpose as the meter indication, which IS :-)


> >Many/most M42 lenses have no auto anything on any camera, so no change
> >there.
>
> Most have auto aperture when used on a camera body
> designed for them.

Funny many of mine have no provision for automation, only later screw thread
lenses did, and even then not all.

>But even that doesn't work when they
> are mounted on a recent vintage camera.  The point of
> course is that those lenses, unlike the pre-AI Nikon F
> mount lenses (never mind the Nikon AI lenses!), are
> barely useable and of questionable value.

I thought I said that already.

> >Sure it works if you have plenty of time. Rules out proper exposure on
most
> >action shots though.
>
> Not true.  First it doesn't take much time,

As long as you can get action subjects to stand still for you long enough.


>and second
> it is far more accurate that using a reflected light
> meter in any case.

Sure, if you have time.

> It might rule out shots where the lighting is changing
> rapidly.  But even then that would only be true if the
> change is rather extreme simply because otherwise it
> just means the margin for error is about equal to using
> a reflected light meter anyway!

Sure, IF you don't understand your metering system and subject content.


> >Even then they are a pain trying to focus stopped down, or remembering to
> >switch back and forwards.
>
> Who focuses stopped down?

Exactly, a pain switching back and forth manually IMO.


> Regardless, manual aperture control is typical for using
> a bellows anyway, hence m42 lenses are no different than
> anything else.

Sure, if you use bellows. Auto extension rings are another matter.


> >In fact since macro work is mostly at small apertures I find it's a worse
> >pain than using a telephoto for action shots. In those cases I just use
it
> >wide open.
> >(or maybe one stop down when necessary)
>
> Auto aperture is nice.  Other than for macro work I have
> no interest in lenses without that feature.

I have no real interest in lenses without that feature for *anything*, which
is why it's a pity I still have so many good lenses that aren't automatic
with a digital body.
Relegates them mostly for film use, and necessitates the purchase of new
lenses, which was my original point.

MrT.

"Jonathan" <Jonathan@house.not> wrote in message
news:W0Qri.27$Qr.20@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> >
> > So you *are* trying to compare an 70-210 F4 lens with a 70-300 f5.6
> > lens right?
>
>  I was only commenting on the weight difference.
>
> > The 80-200 f2.8 is heavier again, does that answer your question?
>
>  What was the question anyway?

Why the weight difference?
(For those with short term memory problems, Google Groups is very useful.)

> > BTW if weight is your prime consideration, probably better to buy one
> > of the long zoom compact digital cameras instead.
>
>  Weight is not much of a consideration. I was just curious if your older
> lens was any heavier than the newer ones that's all.


So you do know what your question was!

MrT.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> >>AI affects metering (which is of
>> >> questionable value on a digital camera anyway), not the
>> >> use of "full aperture control".
>> >
>> >You really think metering is of "questionable value on a digital camera",
>> >why?
>>
>> Absolutely.  "Metering" is hardly a precise method of
>> exposure control when you measure reflected light.  It
>> provides a ballpark value (which totally depends on the
>> metered scene having 18% reflectance).
>
>So no need for the "digital camera" qualifier.

Metering is of questionable value *if* *and* *only* *if*
using a *digital* camera providing a histogram and
a blink on over exposure LCD display.

>However metering IS still
>useful for those who know what it represents.

If you know what it represents it is used far less on a
digital camera, where it is not the essential tool that
it is on a film camera.

But yes it is now and then useful, which is not being
denied.

>> With a modern Nikon camera it is relatively easy to be
>> within less than 1/3rd of an fstop.  Using the
>> histograph display as a start, and then by switching to
>> the LCD's "blink on over exposure" display provides a
>> precisely correct exposure.
>
>And what do you do then if your subject/photo op is now gone forever?
>Cry? :-)

Lots of things take 2 seconds to accomplish, and you
miss the shot forever...  Learn to anticipate; it pays
big dividends in photography.

Nobody has said that light meters are absolutely
worthless.  I've said that they are of significantly
less value on a digital camera than on a film camera.

>Of course IF the histogram display was real time in the viewfinder without
>obstructing the viewfinder image or otherwise being too distracting, then it
>might actually serve the same purpose as the meter indication, which IS :-)

That is another exaggeration.  It is not necessary that
it be in the viewfinder.  Indeed, one of the few things
you probably should be doing with a light meter, and
particularly one displayed in the viewfinder, is using
it as a rough indicator that lighting conditions have
changed and that it would be appropriate to check the
exposure for correctness.

It's just that when you *do* check for correct exposure,
it isn't checked with a light meter.

>> >Many/most M42 lenses have no auto anything on any camera, so no change
>> >there.
>>
>> Most have auto aperture when used on a camera body
>> designed for them.
>
>Funny many of mine have no provision for automation, only later screw thread
>lenses did, and even then not all.

You are having a very difficult time with words.  The
fact that *most* of them are auto does not mean than
none lack that feature.

>>But even that doesn't work when they
>> are mounted on a recent vintage camera.  The point of
>> course is that those lenses, unlike the pre-AI Nikon F
>> mount lenses (never mind the Nikon AI lenses!), are
>> barely useable and of questionable value.
>
>I thought I said that already.

If you said that, why keep claiming those particular
lenses are the defining moment in lense design?

>> >Sure it works if you have plenty of time. Rules out proper exposure on
>most
>> >action shots though.
>>
>> Not true.  First it doesn't take much time,
>
>As long as you can get action subjects to stand still for you long enough.

If your camera is set for the correct exposure, you do
not miss the shot.  You are confused as to _when_ time
needs to be used and when it does not.

Obviously while you are fooling with your treasured stop
down lense above, trying to focus it and get the fstop
set correctly at the same time, *you* are still going to
miss the action.

>>and second
>> it is far more accurate that using a reflected light
>> meter in any case.
>
>Sure, if you have time.

You have to understand the equipment.

>> It might rule out shots where the lighting is changing
>> rapidly.  But even then that would only be true if the
>> change is rather extreme simply because otherwise it
>> just means the margin for error is about equal to using
>> a reflected light meter anyway!
>
>Sure, IF you don't understand your metering system and subject content.

To "understand" your subject content that well takes a
great deal more time using a light meter than it does
using the facilities provided by digital cameras.

Comparing multiple spot meter readings is not nearly as
fast as one test exposure and a glance at an LCD...

>> >Even then they are a pain trying to focus stopped down, or remembering to
>> >switch back and forwards.
>>
>> Who focuses stopped down?
>
>Exactly, a pain switching back and forth manually IMO.

Why did you suggest "trying to focus stopped down"?

>> Regardless, manual aperture control is typical for using
>> a bellows anyway, hence m42 lenses are no different than
>> anything else.
>
>Sure, if you use bellows. Auto extension rings are another matter.

And do not provide the continuous range of adjustment
that a bellows does.  Nor can you get one with tilts and
swings.

>> >In fact since macro work is mostly at small apertures I find it's a worse
>> >pain than using a telephoto for action shots. In those cases I just use
>it
>> >wide open.
>> >(or maybe one stop down when necessary)
>>
>> Auto aperture is nice.  Other than for macro work I have
>> no interest in lenses without that feature.
>
>I have no real interest in lenses without that feature for *anything*, which
>is why it's a pity I still have so many good lenses that aren't automatic
>with a digital body.
>
>Relegates them mostly for film use, and necessitates the purchase of new
>lenses, which was my original point.
>
>MrT.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87r6mn8sm9.fld@apaflo.com...
> Metering is of questionable value *if* *and* *only* *if*
> using a *digital* camera providing a histogram and
> a blink on over exposure LCD display.

Sure, and the answer to that question is : all information is useful to
those who know what to do with it.

> >However metering IS still
> >useful for those who know what it represents.
>
> If you know what it represents it is used far less on a
> digital camera,

No, a smart person uses both sets of information. You of course may ignore
what you like.

>where it is not the essential tool that
> it is on a film camera.

Many people got by without metering in the film camera days too.
Small apertures, negative film, and photo processing adjustments were used
instead.
Not something I would trumpet as being the way to go however!


> But yes it is now and then useful, which is not being
> denied.

Seems like you are doing a lot of denying to me :-)

> Lots of things take 2 seconds to accomplish, and you
> miss the shot forever...  Learn to anticipate; it pays
> big dividends in photography.

So does using the available tools rather than ignoring them!

> Nobody has said that light meters are absolutely
> worthless.  I've said that they are of significantly
> less value on a digital camera than on a film camera.


Well you said they were of "questionable value". That's what I responded to.
If you are now changing that to "less value", then OK.


> That is another exaggeration.  It is not necessary that
> it be in the viewfinder.  Indeed, one of the few things
> you probably should be doing with a light meter, and
> particularly one displayed in the viewfinder, is using
> it as a rough indicator that lighting conditions have
> changed and that it would be appropriate to check the
> exposure for correctness.

Exactly, and hard to do with a histogram.

> It's just that when you *do* check for correct exposure,
> it isn't checked with a light meter.

But that's a different claim altogether than the one I responded to.

> >> Most have auto aperture when used on a camera body
> >> designed for them.
> >
> >Funny many of mine have no provision for automation, only later screw
thread
> >lenses did, and even then not all.
>
> You are having a very difficult time with words.  The
> fact that *most* of them are auto does not mean than
> none lack that feature.

It's not me having a problem with words, you have simply NOT proven that
MOST of them ARE auto.
Certainly not most of mine.


> If you said that, why keep claiming those particular
> lenses are the defining moment in lense design?

Really, and where exactly did I say that. It wasn't me who even brought them
up originally.
As I said, Google Groups is useful for those with short term memory
problems.


> If your camera is set for the correct exposure, you do
> not miss the shot.

Too bad for you if the light changes. My in viewfinder meter will give *me*
an indication it has.

>You are confused as to _when_ time
> needs to be used and when it does not.

Not me sunshine!


> Obviously while you are fooling with your treasured stop
> down lense above, trying to focus it and get the fstop
> set correctly at the same time, *you* are still going to
> miss the action.

Well you have even missed what I wrote, since I in fact claimed no affinity
for stop down lenses.
You must have a real problem even seeing what you are shooting, let alone
getting the right exposure :-)


> You have to understand the equipment.

And obviously you don't, or you would not claim useful information was of
questionable value.

> >Sure, IF you don't understand your metering system and subject content.
>
> To "understand" your subject content that well takes a
> great deal more time using a light meter than it does
> using the facilities provided by digital cameras.

Agreed. So your real statement is that it's just too much trouble for you to
learn?

> Comparing multiple spot meter readings is not nearly as
> fast as one test exposure and a glance at an LCD...

We do agree on something then :-)

> >Exactly, a pain switching back and forth manually IMO.
>
> Why did you suggest "trying to focus stopped down"?

It's the only alternative to switching back and forth. Works OK if you are
shooting nearly wide open.
BUT as I already said, such lenses are a pain in any case.

> >Sure, if you use bellows. Auto extension rings are another matter.
>
> And do not provide the continuous range of adjustment
> that a bellows does.  Nor can you get one with tilts and
> swings.

True, they both have their place. Just like light metering and histograms.
A good photographer knows how and when to use all his available tools.

MrT.

> Metering is of questionable value *if* *and* *only* *if*
> using a *digital* camera providing a histogram and
> a blink on over exposure LCD display.


Right on with you Mr. T.

Floyd seems to think his way is they only way on this and many other 
subjects.

Personnaly I realy like it when I take a peek at the histo only to look up 
and see the shot that got away...  Honestly, if you know how to use the 
meter, you don't even need to look at the histogram.  But of course you can 
allways tweek those missed-by-a-stop-or-two in camera raw anyway, right 
Floyd?

You see, Floyd just likes to make noise.

lol