# Macro lens, nikkor micro 105mm f4 vs. f2.8



## djacobox372 (Aug 24, 2008)

Wanting to do more macro photography, I had been looking for a deal on a nikkor 105mm f2.8, when I came across a 105mm f4 that was too cheap to pass up.

I assumed it would just hold me over until I could afford the f2.8, but now I don't see any reason to upgrade... when shooting 1:1 or 2:1, the dof below f4 would be ridiculously tight--I'm curious just how often those that have a micro f2.8 actually shoot below f4.


----------



## Phranquey (Aug 24, 2008)

First, the f/4 is reviewed as a good macro lens, but the 2.8 lens is a _little_ crisper in photo quality, but not by too much. If you're happy with it, definitely no need to upgrade. 

For macro, I shoot at the opposite end, between f/40 to f/57. Shooting macro at f/4 would be such a rediculously shallow depth of field that you would have to be bang on with your focus, and you would likely not be happy with the results. I.e. - @ f/4, if you focused on a bug's eye, the eye would probably be _the _only thing in focus. You need to stop a true macro lens way down (which means needing additional light or longer shutter speed) to get a desireable DOF.

EDIT:

Here is a macro thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133192

About 1/3 down the thread, you will see a macro done by Overread @ f/2.8, and you will see what I mean about the shalow DOF. Farther down I have a dragonfly shot @ f/45...you will see the difference.


----------



## dmatsui (Aug 24, 2008)

Phranquey what lighting do you use to acheive f40 and still manage to get a suitable shutter speed to take bugs. The only lighting i've heard about for macro is ring lights and i've heard is gives an undiserable lighting.


----------



## Phranquey (Aug 24, 2008)

Go to that macro thread I listed above, and go towards the very bottom of the thread.  I have pics posted of the rig that I use.


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 24, 2008)

Phranquey said:


> First, the f/4 is reviewed as a good macro lens, but the 2.8 lens is a _little_ crisper in photo quality, but not by too much. If you're happy with it, definitely no need to upgrade.
> 
> For macro, I shoot at the opposite end, between f/40 to f/57. Shooting macro at f/4 would be such a rediculously shallow depth of field that you would have to be bang on with your focus, and you would likely not be happy with the results. I.e. - @ f/4, if you focused on a bug's eye, the eye would probably be _the _only thing in focus. You need to stop a true macro lens way down (which means needing additional light or longer shutter speed) to get a desireable DOF.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks... I guess since I'm happy with how sharp my 105 f4 is... no reason to upgrade.


----------



## compur (Aug 24, 2008)

The f/4 is a fantastic lens.  You were smart to buy it. :thumbup:


----------



## clarbin (Aug 24, 2008)

I have the f/2.8.

Great lens! :thumbup:


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 24, 2008)

Phranquey said:


> Took this one today during lunch. 105mm 2.8 non-VR, hand-held @ f/45 & 1/60.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Very kewl stuff! :thumbup:

I also try to always shoot macro at the largest f-number possible.
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126794
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1292354


----------



## Garbz (Aug 25, 2008)

Use it at f/2.8 while doing a macro? Never. That said just because it has macro written on it doesn't mean it can't be used as a portrait lens. f/2.8 really helps there


----------

