File :-(, x, )
Macro with Nikkor 18-200mm Anonymous
I was going to buy this as it seemed to be a good all-in-one lens, at least for wide angle to tele. My question however is, how good is it for macro shots? Closest focusing distance is .5m, while I'm used to nearly touching the subject with my camera.
Anyone have experience/examples?
>> Anonymous
It's not a macro lens.
Learn what macro is...
>> Anonymous
>>232742
Well, I know that. But are you saying it is entirely impossible to do macro with it?
>> Anonymous
get extension tubes
>> Anonymous
>>232752
Well, of course it's entirely impossible, it's not a god damn macro lens. You can only do real macro photography with macro lenses.
>> Anonymous
Thing is, Tamron says about its fairly similar lens (28-200) that it's (also) a macro lens.
Could anyone recommend any good all-in-one lenses that Do include macro?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Oh god damnit.

Listen, no zoom that says macro is actually macro. They're just close focusing. My Tamron 17-50 2.8 said macro. It wasn't. It DID focus close though.

Dude, just get the 18-200 and enjoy it. You'll zoom into 200mm and focus on something and be like, "oh boy, sure is macro!" and post your resultant images to all the flower macro groups on flickr, and it'll be so much fun we'll all have the best time ever.

If you really want true macro, you need a dedicated macro lens, like the tamron 90 2.8.
>> Anonymous
Or the AF-S 60mm f/2.8. The 18-200 is good. Depending on your body, you should be able to crop around your subject enough to fake macro.
>> Anonymous
You can get pretty close to what you're shooting with this lens, but you can't do 1:1.

>>232756

This is a G lens. If you use extension tubes you won't be able to set aperture.

>>232820

I prefer the 105mm Nikkor micro lens. Focus on the non D version that I have is a bit slow, but this is fixed in later versions.

You can also use extension tubes with the micro lenses, because they're all non-G lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>232923
>This is a G lens. If you use extension tubes you won't be able to set aperture.

Don't Nikon extension tubes have communication pins so lenses retain functionality?
>> Anonymous
>>232927

The PK-11A and the PK-13 do not work with G lenses. They're the only ones I have experience with.

If you're going to be doing primarily macro work, invest in a PB-4 bellows. It has much more flexibility than extension tubes, and in addition to getting lens shift, you don't have to buy a focussing stage until you really decide this is what you want to do.

To be honest though, a cheap 50mm f1.8 reversed with a bellows will produce good results for macros of non-moving subjects. If you want to shoot insects and other subjects that will be moving (and flowers outside falls into this category), then you should get a dedicated Nikon macro lens. In my opinion, the 200mm micro from Nikon is too expensive unless you really need the working distance. For starters, you should get the 105mm and a couple of close up lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>232927
Some do, some don't. It depends on the date of manufacture.
>> Anonymous
>>232923
I've read that the old 105mm macro is just obscenely sharp. Any truth to that?
>> Anonymous
>>232958
I guess so, seeing as almost every macro lens nowadays is obscenely sharp.
>> Anonymous
>>232958

In the days of film people would joke that you shouldn't use the 105mm Nikkor as a portrait lens because it was so sharp. I liked the lens, and didn't notice much difference in sharpness between the D and non-D version.

With DX cameras the 105mm could still be used as a portrait lens, but it works much better as a macro lens, and if you're doing copy work or other studio work the slow focussing isn't an issue.

I have no experience with the latest version 105mm with IF and VR except that it looks like they changed from a 52mm front filter to 62mm which means you'd need to buy new close up lenses and you can't use the old PK and PN tubes, and bellows and so on.