# What do you think of this macro lens for Nikon?



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

Hey guys,

What do you think of this for my Nikon D5100. I can't afford digital lenses so I'd thought vintage might be the way to go for now.  Vivitar 98418922, Nikon AI mount macro zoom lens, 70-210mm, f/4.5-5.6 or possibly a 100-500 vintage zoom.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 10, 2015)

It's probably on par with the one I sent you.

I'd think a 100-500 might be a bit frustrating for you, especially at the long end. Shooting over 300mm, especially with a crop sensor, gets tricky.

It shouldn't cost more than $35.

AllPhotoLenses has a page for it, but there's no reviews.

The Vivitar MC 70-210 mm f 4.5-5.6 II Lens. Specs. MTF Charts. User Reviews.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

480sparky said:


> It's probably on par with the one I sent you.
> 
> I'd think a 100-500 might be a bit frustrating for you, especially at the long end. Shooting over 300mm, especially with a crop sensor, gets tricky.
> 
> ...




By frustrating you mean because it's all manual and focusing would be difficult? I will take a look at the link you sent me. It's too bad the lens you gave me it's not a macro as well. Btw I've been playing with it a lot. I'm enjoying it thoroughly.  Thanks again Sparky [emoji3]


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

480sparky said:


> It's probably on par with the one I sent you.
> 
> I'd think a 100-500 might be a bit frustrating for you, especially at the long end. Shooting over 300mm, especially with a crop sensor, gets tricky.
> 
> ...



Btw what does MC stand for on the lens?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 10, 2015)

That MC Hammer once owned it. 













j/k.

MultiCoated.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2015)

Well, the Vivitar above has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:5, or one-fifth life size, which is actually pretty good for a zoom lens of its era. While it's not true "macro", it is a pretty good close-up magnification, good for many small subjects. I agree--cost ought  not exceed $35 for something like a 70-200 f/4~5.6. Last week at a local pawn shop I looked at the Kiron 70-200 f/4 macro, for $29, which has the advantage of a constant f/4 aperture through the entire zoom range.

This is not really a macro lens. Look up the lens you have on the site sparky referenced above, and check the reproduction ratio if you can.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

480sparky said:


> That MC Hammer once owned it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're too funny sparky [emoji14]


----------



## oldhippy (Jun 10, 2015)

For that price I'd give it a shot.  Should be able to sell if you don't like it.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Well, the Vivitar above has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:5, or one-fifth life size, which is actually pretty good for a zoom lens of its era. While it's not true "macro", it is a pretty good close-up magnification, good for many small subjects. I agree--cost ought  not exceed $35 for something like a 70-200 f/4~5.6. Last week at a local pawn shop I looked at the Kiron 70-200 f/4 macro, for $29, which has the advantage of a constant f/4 aperture through the entire zoom range.
> 
> This is not really a macro lens. Look up the lens you have on the site sparky referenced above, and check the reproduction ratio if you can.



Not sure if I understood, but are you saying the lens sparky sent me the link to is not a macro right? I could not find the info on reproduction ratio on that site. Will have to do some research.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

oldhippy said:


> For that price I'd give it a shot.  Should be able to sell if you don't like it.




That's what I'm thinking Ed [emoji2]


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2015)

In the 1970's, 35mm SLR photography enjoyed a very good popularity expansion once Canon figured out a way to make a cheaper and lower-priced 35mm SLR than just about anybody else, and by the early 1980's, there was a HUGE explosion of 70-200mm or 70-210mm zoom lenses made by about 15 different Japanese-based lens manufacturing companies, and those lenses were "branded" by various stores, camera chains, and small-time "labels", often under multiple "labels. A famous one was Vivitar. Vivitar never actually manufactured a single lens; they contracted that out, and had many different makers for their multiple lenses. Well, in that era, with so much competition, it was found that adding a Macro mode was a sales feature. Just adding a couple of lines showing the closest focusing zone was enough....fill 'em with orange paint and the word "Macro" also in a colored Paint, and suddenly a lens that focused relatively close could easily be labeled as and marketed as a "macro zoom lens".

A real, *true macro lens* almost always focuses to at least 1:2, or 1/2 life size. More commonly today, that is improved, and a macro lens will focus to 1:1, or life size. But on macro zooms, the range is usually around 1:10 to 1:5, which is a LOT LESS magnification than 1:1, or even 1:2. So...the words "macro zoom lens" from the 1970's until 2015 means basically a zoom lens that focuses a bit closer than what would be considered normal, but is pretty much not much more than marketing hyperbole. The word "Macro" on the barrel of a zoom lens do not mean much. Think of it more as a close-focusing zoom lens than a real, true, purpose-built macro lens.

One thing: adding a good-quality close-up lens, like the Canon 250D, or the Nikon 5T or 6T, or other high-grade, two-element close-up lenses (screw-in filters, basically, but with two lens elements and good multi coatings), can actually do pretty good macro work with a number of lenses.
An inexpensive 12 to 20mm extension tube, or even a cheapie teleconverter with the glass smashed out with a hammer to MAKE an extension tube, can be used with something like the Nikon D5100. SInce your camera uses only the central image zone, the results can be pretty acceptable to maybe even good. The best close-up lenses, when used with a good zoom, can produce pretty good image quality.

HERE is an inexpensive Nikon mount zoom with a macro focusing mode, constant, perfectly round max aperture of f/5.6, and which works exceptionally well with a reverse-mounted Nikon 6& close-up lens on the front of it. This lens combo is specifically mentioned as being exceptional by Bjorn Rorslett, the Nikon lens expert, on his web site's lens review sections.NIKON 100-300MM F 5.6 AIS MANUAL FOCUS LENS 62 - KEH Camera

AS he wrote: Zoom Lenses For Nikon F Mount Telephoto
"The real surprise of the 100-300, however, comes when you put a close-up lens onto its front threads. I employed my standard Nikon 6T (reverse-mounted) and was *absolutely floored by the high quality close-ups produced by this combination*. High image sharpness and contrast, perfectly flat field, and virtually no CA are features you associate with an expensive Micro-Nikkor, not a makeshift combination of a achromatic attachment and a consumer zoom lens. Food for some real thoughts"

I acquired a Nikon 6T and reversing ring for it myself...what he wrote is true. On 24 MP FX Nikon, the closeups are staggeringly good from the 100-300 zoom.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 10, 2015)

annamaria said:


> Not sure if I understood, but are you saying the lens sparky sent me the link to is not a macro right? I could not find the info on reproduction ratio on that site. Will have to do some research.



FWIW, there is no formal definition of the word 'macro'.  So that means manufacturers are free to use it as loosely and liberally as they like.  It's called 'a bit of Madison Avenue license'.  The lens *is* 'macro', in the sense that the manufacturer can simply _claim_ it is.   I've seen lenses that proudly boast "1:20 macro!!!" By the same token, McDonalds can start selling Macro Big Macs, Ford can start churning out Macro Mustangs, and Obama can change our policy on Macro Foreign Affairs.

But the 'general' consensus is 'macro' starts at 1:1.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

Derrel said:


> In the 1970's, 35mm SLR photography enjoyed a very good popularity expansion once Canon figured out a way to make a cheaper and lower-priced 35mm SLR than just about anybody else, and by the early 1980's, there was a HUGE explosion of 70-200mm or 70-210mm zoom lenses made by about 15 different Japanese-based lens manufacturing companies, and those lenses were "branded" by various stores, camera chains, and small-time "labels", often under multiple "labels. A famous one was Vivitar. Vivitar never actually manufactured a single lens; they contracted that out, and had many different makers for their multiple lenses. Well, in that era, with so much competition, it was found that adding a Macro mode was a sales feature. Just adding a couple of lines showing the closest focusing zone was enough....fill 'em with orange paint and the word "Macro" also in a colored Paint, and suddenly a lens that focused relatively close could easily be labeled as and marketed as a "macro zoom lens".
> 
> A real, *true macro lens* almost always focuses to at least 1:2, or 1/2 life size. More commonly today, that is improved, and a macro lens will focus to 1:1, or life size. But on macro zooms, the range is usually around 1:10 to 1:5, which is a LOT LESS magnification than 1:1, or even 1:2. So...the words "macro zoom lens" from the 1970's until 2015 means basically a zoom lens that focuses a bit closer than what would be considered normal, but is pretty much not much more than marketing hyperbole. The word "Macro" on the barrel of a zoom lens do not mean much. Think of it more as a close-focusing zoom lens than a real, true, purpose-built macro lens.
> 
> ...



Wow! Lots of info here. Will have to read this several times and make sure I understand it. I will definitely look into all the links you sent me.  I may have more questions for you after I assimilate all this.  [emoji6] Thank you so much!! You always take the time to explain things to us noobs.  I for one am very appreciative.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

480sparky said:


> annamaria said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if I understood, but are you saying the lens sparky sent me the link to is not a macro right? I could not find the info on reproduction ratio on that site. Will have to do some research.
> ...



So Sparky how do I know for sure a macro lens is truly a macro lens?

Btw this was hilarious!! [emoji12]


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

480sparky said:


> annamaria said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if I understood, but are you saying the lens sparky sent me the link to is not a macro right? I could not find the info on reproduction ratio on that site. Will have to do some research.
> ...



While we're on the subject of macro what do you think of enlarger lenses?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 10, 2015)

annamaria said:


> So Sparky how do I know for sure a macro lens is truly a macro lens?
> Btw this was hilarious!! [emoji12]



Since there's no official definition, you really don't.  However, if the manufacturer supplies a reproduction ratio or magnification figure (1:2 or 0.5x etc), then you'll have an idea what to expect.

1:1, or 1x, would mean a 15.6mm x 23.6mm rectangle will completely fill the viewfinder & perfectly fit the sensor of your DX body.




annamaria said:


> While we're on the subject of macro what do you think of enlarger lenses?



I know some use them for macro work, but I don't have any experience with them other than using them on an enlarger.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

480sparky said:


> annamaria said:
> 
> 
> > So Sparky how do I know for sure a macro lens is truly a macro lens?
> ...




Thanks so much Sparky will jot that info down. You know your stuff.


----------



## Dave442 (Jun 10, 2015)

You start thinking about enlarger lenses and next thing you are going down that never ending path called macro photography.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 10, 2015)

Dave442 said:


> You start thinking about enlarger lenses and next thing you are going down that never ending path called macro photography.


 
Macro is so fascinating!!!


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 10, 2015)

Dave442 said:


> You start thinking about enlarger lenses and next thing you are going down that never ending path called macro photography.



One day our little girl is asking about macro lenses.  Next thing we know, she's hooked on bellows, geared tripod heads, focus rails and stacking software.
Where did we go wrong?  Is there a Betty Ford clinic for photography addiction?


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Dave442 said:
> 
> 
> > You start thinking about enlarger lenses and next thing you are going down that never ending path called macro photography.
> ...



Oh oh, I'm a shutter addict!!  Guys I need intervention! [emoji33] oh no, the funny farm truck just pulled up.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> In the 1970's, 35mm SLR photography enjoyed a very good popularity expansion once Canon figured out a way to make a cheaper and lower-priced 35mm SLR than just about anybody else, and by the early 1980's, there was a HUGE explosion of 70-200mm or 70-210mm zoom lenses made by about 15 different Japanese-based lens manufacturing companies, and those lenses were "branded" by various stores, camera chains, and small-time "labels", often under multiple "labels. A famous one was Vivitar. Vivitar never actually manufactured a single lens; they contracted that out, and had many different makers for their multiple lenses. Well, in that era, with so much competition, it was found that adding a Macro mode was a sales feature. Just adding a couple of lines showing the closest focusing zone was enough....fill 'em with orange paint and the word "Macro" also in a colored Paint, and suddenly a lens that focused relatively close could easily be labeled as and marketed as a "macro zoom lens".
> 
> A real, *true macro lens* almost always focuses to at least 1:2, or 1/2 life size. More commonly today, that is improved, and a macro lens will focus to 1:1, or life size. But on macro zooms, the range is usually around 1:10 to 1:5, which is a LOT LESS magnification than 1:1, or even 1:2. So...the words "macro zoom lens" from the 1970's until 2015 means basically a zoom lens that focuses a bit closer than what would be considered normal, but is pretty much not much more than marketing hyperbole. The word "Macro" on the barrel of a zoom lens do not mean much. Think of it more as a close-focusing zoom lens than a real, true, purpose-built macro lens.
> 
> ...



So Derrel you're saying that the 100-300 coupled with the 6T would be a good combo for my D5100 right? I have pasted the link of a 6T to see if this is what you're referring to. Might be out of my price range for now, but it's something I can save for in the future. The 6T is around the $100 range, unless I'm looking at the wrong item. I really appreciate the detailed info you gave me.  You're good at explaining.   Thanks!!!

Nikon Manual Focus 62 CLOSE-UP 6T - KEH Camera


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2015)

Yes, that is a Nikon 6T. It is a + 2.9 diopter, two-element close-up lens. It has two different kinds of glass, in two separate, multi-coated lens elements. It was designed as part of the Nikon System, and works best on many of their older zoom lenses. See (The New Nikon Compendium Cameras Lenses Accessories Since 1917 - Simon Stafford Rudolf Hillebrand Hans-Joachim Hauschild - Google Books

For a $100 accessory, and an $85 zoom lens, you get a good combination of a long, tele-zoom, and a very high-quality "lifetime grade" close-up lens. 

I think part of the success might be the reverse-mounting of the 6T on that specific lens. Again, this is a recommendation from Bjorn Rorslett, one of Norway's preeminent nature and close-up specialists, and a true Nikon system expert of world-wide fame. I was shocked when I tried it. This is high-quality close-up capability, at just under $200.

Is it a great deal for a D5100? Well, you lose the EXIF reporting and the automatic  light metering, but in many ways, close-ups like this work almost as well with a speedlight with the user setting the flash to a specific, fractional power setting, and then at X distance, when the focus is achieved by bending over or bending back, once the subject comes into focus, THAT specific flash power delivers the proper exposure level for shot after shot.

In many macro photo situations, if the flash is mounted on the camera, or on a bracket on the side of the camera or side of the lens, the manual, fractional powers, like 1/64 or 1/32, or 1/16, are useful at specific focusing distances, over and over, and over.

Modern speedlights that have powers like 1/64 power Minus 1/3 and then 1/64 power Minus 2/3 EV, then 1/32 power, then 1/32 Minus 1/3 EV, and then 1/32 power Minus 2/3 EV, then 1/16 power, and so on, offer incredibly precise, incremental power adjustment. What that means is that you can test the needed flash setting at say, maximum focusing distance with the 6T, and then minimum distance with the 6T, and note which precise flash power gives the right exposure for 1)a specific focusing distance at 2) a specific f/stop and 3)a specific ISO level.

In much close-up and macro photography, the flash is the source of the lighting. The power of the flash can be set, according to the focusing distance in use. The camera and lens is moved until the subject comes into focus. The photo is shot. Check the histogram, and the exposure is adjusted by changing the flash power, or by a minor ISO adjustment.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

So it actually works best on older zooms as opposed to newer digital zooms?  I'm assuming zoom lens is different than telephoto correct? Thanks for the article will read it.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 11, 2015)

There isn't much difference in the optics between 'old' lenses and 'new'.  That makes a lens 'digital' is the electronic communication betwixt it and the camera.  It would probably work just peachy keen on a brand-spankin'-new zoom.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Yes, that is a Nikon 6T. It is a + 2.9 diopter, two-element close-up lens. It has two different kinds of glass, in two separate, multi-coated lens elements. It was designed as part of the Nikon System, and works best on many of their older zoom lenses. See (The New Nikon Compendium Cameras Lenses Accessories Since 1917 - Simon Stafford Rudolf Hillebrand Hans-Joachim Hauschild - Google Books
> 
> For a $100 accessory, and an $85 zoom lens, you get a good combination of a long, tele-zoom, and a very high-quality "lifetime grade" close-up lens.
> 
> ...





Derrel said:


> Yes, that is a Nikon 6T. It is a + 2.9 diopter, two-element close-up lens. It has two different kinds of glass, in two separate, multi-coated lens elements. It was designed as part of the Nikon System, and works best on many of their older zoom lenses. See (The New Nikon Compendium Cameras Lenses Accessories Since 1917 - Simon Stafford Rudolf Hillebrand Hans-Joachim Hauschild - Google Books
> 
> For a $100 accessory, and an $85 zoom lens, you get a good combination of a long, tele-zoom, and a very high-quality "lifetime grade" close-up lens.
> 
> ...



Another question.  Would the 6T work on the Soligor 70-210 that Sparky gave me?


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> There isn't much difference in the optics between 'old' lenses and 'new'.  That makes a lens 'digital' is the electronic communication betwixt it and the camera.  It would probably work just peachy keen on a brand-spankin'-new zoom.


 

Thanks Sparky and I was wondering if  the 6T would work on the Soligor lens you gave me.  Hopefully


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 11, 2015)

No reason it shouldn't.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> No reason it shouldn't.



Great!!! That's good news.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2015)

annamaria said:
			
		

> Thanks Sparky and I was wondering if  the 6T would work on the Soligor lens you gave me.  Hopefully



The 6T has 62mm filter threads on the back, and the front of it, so, if you need to put it on a lens with a smaller filter thread, you would want a step ring. Fotodiox sells a LOT of different step rings, as well as lens reversing rings. Not sure what filter diameter the Soligor is: 52,55,58mm diameter? Or is it a 62mm filter sized lens?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 11, 2015)

58mm threads is what I think that lens will have.

The Soligor C D 70-210 mm f 4.5 Zoom Macro Lens. Specs. MTF Charts. User Reviews.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> annamaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It says 58 along with a symbol similar to this. [emoji724] So would I need a step ring and reversing ring? Can reversing damage a camera along with the chance of dust getting into the camera?


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> 58mm threads is what I think that lens will have.
> 
> The Soligor C D 70-210 mm f 4.5 Zoom Macro Lens. Specs. MTF Charts. User Reviews.



Yes that is what it shows minus the word macro.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 11, 2015)

You can go with the lens, plus an adapter ring, or find a basic extension tube.  You won't need one with the electrical contacts or autofocus screw drive... just one that will move the lens out and actuate the aperture blades.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> You can go with the lens, plus an adapter ring, or find a basic extension tube.  You won't need one with the electrical contacts or autofocus screw drive... just one that will move the lens out and actuate the aperture blades.



Something like this?

Raynox DCR-250 2.5x Super Macro Lens DCR-250 B H Photo Video


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

annamaria said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > You can go with the lens, plus an adapter ring, or find a basic extension tube.  You won't need one with the electrical contacts or autofocus screw drive... just one that will move the lens out and actuate the aperture blades.
> ...



Looking for the 58, but can't find it.  Will have to look tomorrow when I'm more awake.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 11, 2015)

That might work.

But in reference to an extension tube:  PK-13 Auto Extension Tube AI 27.5mm from Nikon


----------



## annamaria (Jun 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> That might work.
> 
> But in reference to an extension tube:  PK-13 Auto Extension Tube AI 27.5mm from Nikon



So this would work for the Soligor using my D5100?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 12, 2015)

I can't see why not.

Option No. 3:  If you have a prime lens, you can reverse it in front of the Soligor and turn it into a close-up lens.

Your only expense would be maybe $20 for a reversing ring.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 12, 2015)

All along I have been very specifically writing about r*eversing the 6T* on *the front of the lens*, not reversing the lens. Reversing a long zoom lens like the 100-300 would be a major PITA.

If you want a Nikon extension tube, the M-2 is realllllly cheap.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 12, 2015)

I'm referring to reversing a prime lens in front of the Soligor, not reversing the zoom lens.

Operator --> camera --> zoom lens --> reversing ring --> prime lens --> subject.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 12, 2015)

I was referencing annamarie's question RE if a reversing ring could allow dust to get into the camera...and if it "could damage the camera"...see Post #32


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 12, 2015)

I think it would be a moot point.  Just using your camera can cause it to become damaged, and getting dirt inside one is a fact of life when you use it.

That said, reversing a prime in front of the zoom has the same amount of danger to the camera as spinning on a filter.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 12, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I'm referring to reversing a prime lens in front of the Soligor, not reversing the zoom lens.
> 
> Operator --> camera --> zoom lens --> reversing ring --> prime lens --> subject.



Ah I got it. Thanks for explaining it to me.  Much appreciated.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 12, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I can't see why not.
> 
> Option No. 3:  If you have a prime lens, you can reverse it in front of the Soligor and turn it into a close-up lens.
> 
> Your only expense would be maybe $20 for a reversing ring.



I don't have a prime lens just entry level lens.  But this is good to know.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 12, 2015)

annamaria said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see why not.
> ...



Since the reversed lens won't be attached to the camera, ANY prime will do.  The lens mount will not matter.  Although it would be nice to have one in a Nikon mount (so you can use it normally), a lens with a Canon, Pentax, Sony etc mount will do the trick.  

I scored an old pre-Ai Nikkor 28mm that I use reversed on a bellows for $8.  Someone had tried to do a DIY Ai conversion and butchered the mount.  So the lens mount is pretty much useless for 'normal;' use.  But since the lens pretty much stays attached (reversed) to my bellows, it functions just fine for it's purpose.

In fact, maybe an old Canon film lens would work better in this situation than a Nikon as Nikon lenses default to minimum aperture when not mounted, whereas Canons can be wide open.

I'd check a few pawn shops and thrift stores (Salvation Army, Goodwill etc) for a bargain prime.  You may just find something for the same price as dinner at the Golden Arches Supper Club.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 12, 2015)

Derrel said:


> All along I have been very specifically writing about r*eversing the 6T* on *the front of the lens*, not reversing the lens. Reversing a long zoom lens like the 100-300 would be a major PITA.
> 
> If you want a Nikon extension tube, the M-2 is realllllly cheap.



Sorry Derrel I hadn't seen this post.   I went back and reread all the info on this thread.  I appreciate all your help and going to refer to it as I figure out all this.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 12, 2015)

480sparky said:


> annamaria said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Another option to think about.  I will keep that in mind whenever I go to yard sales, flea markets etc. I really appreciate your help with this.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 12, 2015)

Check your Conversations.  I might have something for you.


----------



## annamaria (Jun 12, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Check your Conversations.  I might have something for you.



Ok let me check hold on


----------

