The new addition to LIC

Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 micro was what i wanted, but Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 was what i got. Why, you asked the three letter word, economics I replied you my answer. Looking at what the macro lens from Vicki’s and Evan’s can do, i was sorely tempted indeed.


Nikon’s micro 60mm was a hefty $760, which made me wonder do i really need such an expensive lens, even my Nikon SLR d40 was only $750. And not to mention the people around me saying it’s a waste of money since all i take with the micro lens will be food.

Therefore i decided to go for Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 ($188) instead, after reading rave reviews about the sharp and bokeh effects, which also happened to be Nikon’s cheapest lens. Sharp it was, with superb bokeh effects, but i realised it isn’t suitable for taking food.

For taking portrait shots, it worked wonders, but for taking close up food-graphy, it ain’t the same as micro lens. Not to mention it wouldn’t AF on the entry level d40, and i have to learn MF from scratch, which wasn’t easy.

I especially liked the last two photos, still learning how to handle the lens with the manuel focus. Think i’ll use this for the portrait shots, and the Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 micro does seems to make a nice little present for Christmas! No matter, welcome to the family!

Cheers,
Brad

19 COMMENTS

When you’ve enough money, change the body loh! Than can use auto focus with any lens! :P

50mm is a very good for portraits too! should invest in the f1.4 leh! :P

hahaha! you are tempting me. But i don’t think i will change the body so fast la. Body expensive man. ya i try taking portrait shots with the 50mm, the results very good. f1.4 about 200 bucks more leh! nvm, 60mm micro here i come : )

Wow, I am looking forward to more yummy pictures… Macro lens was too expensive for daddy to invest. He and his photography buddy went for a cheaper alternative… The Hoya Filter (Close up +2 and +3) lens…

Here is some of his collection…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tocksuan/

Not too bad right? I am proud of him, he picked up photography only a year ago…

hey nice pics!!!!!!! i think they work better than my macro lens. very beautiful! basically i think taking food pics are the same? just need some time to get used to it. nvm lah, just try. i’m sure u will get the hang of it in no time!

foodiequeen: No choice, addicted to it already. ha

hfb: When are you getting your dslr? : )

Fen: wow, your dad’s photos are nice, he didn’t use macro lens? but some of his shots which took insects and flowers are very macro-ist

evan: haha! no la, how can compare with macro lens. the 50mm f1.8 can’t take close up shots, have to take from quite a distance.

Nic: really? but it will add up to 600+, like that almost close to the 60mm macro lens liao. haha

vicki: yeah i like the bokeh effects too

sp: :)

fatpig: ya but its about 200 bucks more.

mike: i paid 750 for my nikon d40, and 188 for my new lens, the 50mm f1.8

According to him, each filter is less than $20 bucks. It works like a UV filter which you fit it on the existing lens and is something like a magnifying lens…

Unless you want the blurring of the background and the narrow depth of view, a macro lens is not really necessary.

In fact, he showed me by reducing the shutter speed, the background can be darkened and a small F-stop can narrow down the depth of view…

The advantage of using close-up filters is that you don’t have to change the lens. My dad is paranoid with dust… For Hoyu filters, it seems that anything above +5 will compromise on the image quality. A better brand will be Raynox (High Definition Conversion Lenses) but more expensive…

To him, he can use “mechanical zoom aka legs” if he needs a +4.

For your reference, http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/egindex.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>