Ken's great, and he's my go-to source of information for any Nikon purchase I consider. But I disagree with him on macro equipment.
He seems to equate the use of macro lenses for uber-closeup work, which is not always the case with coin photography. I have both 60mm and 105mm macro lenses, and the 60mm is my go-to preference for full-slab shots. But when it comes to smaller coin details, out comes the 105mm and the extension tubes.
Although Ken has written more than most anyone about cameras and knows more about cameras than your common coin forum member, his views are not always well respected in the photographic community and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Keep in mind: "I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem." (followed up with a link to pictures of his growing family)
<< <i>Keep in mind: "I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem." (followed up with a link to pictures of his growing family) >>
So you are probably saying it's a good idea to get more than ONE opinion. Seems reasonable to me.
He hasa good review (albeit a quick one ) on the Tokina lense for Nikon. I can vouch for that since that is the Macro lense I use with my Nikon 3100 camera....works good enough for me. I might, however, look into 180/200mm in the future....
I enjoy reading Ken Rockwell, if only for a different perspective. But he is very opinionated and his opinions may or may not correspond with others' or with commonly held beliefs. For example, I think users the 65mm MPE macro lens would probably have more than a little issue with his statement that serious macro work requires 100mm+ lenses.
Edit: I see at the bottom he does touch on the MPE with this to say: "This one is more for the microscope guys, not for shooting the sort of fist-sized things I call macro." Fist sized things I don't believe would be most folks definition of macro.
I'm with Dennis. I read his recommendations whenever considering photo equipment purchases. I also read other reviews and make comparisons. Sometimes they line up, sometimes not. In the case of his macro lens reviews (for Nikon, anyway), his assessment of the Nikkor 200/4 AF-D is consistent with everyone's, as well as with my experiences with it. He does, however, seem to imply that one should always buy the longest focal length possible for macro, which isn't necessarily always true.
I wouldn't buy either of these brands. Even if the optics can be as good as the others, the mechanical quality of the samples I've seen has not been up to my standards, and there is far more potential for the lenses you buy today not to work on the cameras you buy tomorrow with these brands than with camera-maker-brand lenses.
The main reason people bought Sigma and Tamron was for price. Today, you're much better off with a used manual-focus Micro-NIKKOR for even less money with far superior quality, but hey, if you prefer these off-brands, don't let me stop you.
Any opinions on the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro for Nikon? Will it mount to a D3100? Found one a CL for $500 used, it's local though. Seems a bit much, what do you guys think?
<< <i>I wouldn't buy either of these brands. Even if the optics can be as good as the others, the mechanical quality of the samples I've seen has not been up to my standards, and there is far more potential for the lenses you buy today not to work on the cameras you buy tomorrow with these brands than with camera-maker-brand lenses. >>
Main reason for not buying Sigma or Tamron lenses is that they do not have complete access to all of the propritary camera body to lens electronic interface information from manufacturers like Nikon or Canon which is why he mentions that the lenses may not work from one generation of camera body to the next. That said, I have used both Tamron and Sigma lenses with older film cameras and they worked fine for the general photography I was doing at the time; however they seemed to wear out faster than the Canon lenses I had.
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
Probably depends upon a couple of things ... especially if the lens was released after the article was written and he has not revisited the subject again. More likely he did not have acces to said lens at the time the article was written. Considering the number of Canon L series lenses with Macro that are not in the article ... access to various lenses is most likely the issue. If you are looking for reviews of a specific lens, it would probably be easier to check the likes of Shutterbug, Popular Photography or Petersen's Photographic.
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
I want to see Nikon update their Nikon 200mm f/4 AF-D lens to use their newer technology of AF-S VR. A couple of years ago they updated their 105mm Macro to VR...next up the 200mm! Would be cool.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Comments
He seems to equate the use of macro lenses for uber-closeup work, which is not always the case with coin photography. I have both 60mm and 105mm macro lenses, and the 60mm is my go-to preference for full-slab shots. But when it comes to smaller coin details, out comes the 105mm and the extension tubes.
Keep in mind:
"I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem."
(followed up with a link to pictures of his growing family)
<< <i>Keep in mind:
"I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem."
(followed up with a link to pictures of his growing family) >>
So you are probably saying it's a good idea to get more than ONE opinion. Seems reasonable to me.
He hasa good review (albeit a quick one ) on the Tokina lense for Nikon. I can vouch for that since that is the Macro lense I use with my Nikon 3100 camera....works good enough for me. I might, however, look into 180/200mm in the future....
jom
Edit: I see at the bottom he does touch on the MPE with this to say: "This one is more for the microscope guys, not for shooting the sort of fist-sized things I call macro." Fist sized things I don't believe would be most folks definition of macro.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
The nikon 200 looks interesting for it's sharpness, but with some effort, I get exceedingly sharp results with my Sigma.
As for Ken's website, I use it extensively, and have on occasion sent him a few bones by Paypal just to be cool.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
<< <i>No mention of the Sigma 150? Guess it didn't make the cut.
The nikon 200 looks interesting for it's sharpness, but with some effort, I get exceedingly sharp results with my Sigma.
As for Ken's website, I use it extensively, and have on occasion sent him a few bones by Paypal just to be cool.
>>
He does comment on the Sigma brand.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Sigma and Tamron top
I wouldn't buy either of these brands. Even if the optics can be as good as the others, the mechanical quality of the samples I've seen has not been up to my standards, and there is far more potential for the lenses you buy today not to work on the cameras you buy tomorrow with these brands than with camera-maker-brand lenses.
The main reason people bought Sigma and Tamron was for price. Today, you're much better off with a used manual-focus Micro-NIKKOR for even less money with far superior quality, but hey, if you prefer these off-brands, don't let me stop you.
It depends a LOT in the size of coin. Smaller coins are harder to shoot.
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
<< <i>I wouldn't buy either of these brands. Even if the optics can be as good as the others, the mechanical quality of the samples I've seen has not been up to my standards, and there is far more potential for the lenses you buy today not to work on the cameras you buy tomorrow with these brands than with camera-maker-brand lenses. >>
Main reason for not buying Sigma or Tamron lenses is that they do not have complete access to all of the propritary camera body to lens electronic interface information from manufacturers like Nikon or Canon which is why he mentions that the lenses may not work from one generation of camera body to the next. That said, I have used both Tamron and Sigma lenses with older film cameras and they worked fine for the general photography I was doing at the time; however they seemed to wear out faster than the Canon lenses I had.
Happy Rock Wrens
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova
Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
<< <i>No mention of the Sigma 150? >>
Probably depends upon a couple of things ... especially if the lens was released after the article was written and he has not revisited the subject again. More likely he did not have acces to said lens at the time the article was written. Considering the number of Canon L series lenses with Macro that are not in the article ... access to various lenses is most likely the issue. If you are looking for reviews of a specific lens, it would probably be easier to check the likes of Shutterbug, Popular Photography or Petersen's Photographic.
Shutterbug Review
Happy Rock Wrens
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova
Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.