justareader
10-08 08:10 PM
I would appreciate if someone can help me with a link to how to post this question as a new post. I do not want to hijack this thread :o
wallpaper Richardson of Charlotte,
donelson
January 7th, 2005, 03:28 PM
I picked up the 105 Micro Nikkor about a month ago to use with my D100, and while I haven't taken a lot of pictures with it, yet, I've been happy with the ones I have taken. I did quite a bit of research before I bought it and determined that this would be a little better for my needs than the 60mm. Hope this helps.
Don :)
I take macro photographs of gems and jewelry to be sold on the Internet. Currently, I use a coolpix 5000 and get some pretty good photos from it. I use a light box and different light sources (fluorescent & incandescent) to capture color and color-changes in the gems.
I just bought a d70 and now need a good macro lens for it. I tried the promaster 100mm macro (I think it is the vivitar lens) and it didn't work to well for me. My 1:1 macro images are all under exposed and not as clear as I have seen. They are actually blurry when blown up 100% on my monitor. I use a good tripod and stopped down to f22 to increase depth of field. If I pull back a bit, the images get better, but then I don't have the magnification I need.
I take the photos on extra white laser printer paper and most of the time, use indirect 5000K fluorescent lighting in a light box. I don't understand why my 1:1 photos seem to be underexposed. The white paper looks gray and the gem is dark and dull. Photos taken with my coolpix 5000 look great. The background is white, and the gems are lively.
After my disappointment with the cheap promaster lens, I made the decision to purchase the Nikon 105 Micro, but when I called to order it (from expresscamera.com), they asked me why I was purchasing a 35mm lens for my digital camera. They suggested the Sigma 105mm EX DG lens and wanted to sell it to me for $650. They said that this sigma lens was better than the Nikon for digital cameras and that the Nikon would also take underexposed photos. This could be that they just didn�t want to sell me the Nikon lens for $500 and wanted to sell me a $400 sigma lens for $650.:mad:
I need a lens that will allow me to blow the photos up to 100% on my monitor and they will be clear and the gem needs to look like a gem and not a dark crystal.
Don :)
I take macro photographs of gems and jewelry to be sold on the Internet. Currently, I use a coolpix 5000 and get some pretty good photos from it. I use a light box and different light sources (fluorescent & incandescent) to capture color and color-changes in the gems.
I just bought a d70 and now need a good macro lens for it. I tried the promaster 100mm macro (I think it is the vivitar lens) and it didn't work to well for me. My 1:1 macro images are all under exposed and not as clear as I have seen. They are actually blurry when blown up 100% on my monitor. I use a good tripod and stopped down to f22 to increase depth of field. If I pull back a bit, the images get better, but then I don't have the magnification I need.
I take the photos on extra white laser printer paper and most of the time, use indirect 5000K fluorescent lighting in a light box. I don't understand why my 1:1 photos seem to be underexposed. The white paper looks gray and the gem is dark and dull. Photos taken with my coolpix 5000 look great. The background is white, and the gems are lively.
After my disappointment with the cheap promaster lens, I made the decision to purchase the Nikon 105 Micro, but when I called to order it (from expresscamera.com), they asked me why I was purchasing a 35mm lens for my digital camera. They suggested the Sigma 105mm EX DG lens and wanted to sell it to me for $650. They said that this sigma lens was better than the Nikon for digital cameras and that the Nikon would also take underexposed photos. This could be that they just didn�t want to sell me the Nikon lens for $500 and wanted to sell me a $400 sigma lens for $650.:mad:
I need a lens that will allow me to blow the photos up to 100% on my monitor and they will be clear and the gem needs to look like a gem and not a dark crystal.
Anders �stberg
May 3rd, 2005, 06:36 AM
Thanks Mats!
That's great info as a starting point. What I can safely say is that my panning technique is non-existent, so I'm probably safer with shorter shutter times. If the weather improves a bit I'll try it at tomorrow evening's practice session.
That's great info as a starting point. What I can safely say is that my panning technique is non-existent, so I'm probably safer with shorter shutter times. If the weather improves a bit I'll try it at tomorrow evening's practice session.