Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens

Ferguson

Cape Coral, US
5757 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
Ferguson Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for the generous sharing of his high level expertise in the spirit of Nikonians Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004
Fri 19-Oct-12 07:59 PM | edited Fri 19-Oct-12 08:00 PM by Ferguson

I have a 6T that works well on an old, cheap 70-300 lens. Well meaning I get about 1:1 (a bit over) and I can focus. I play with Macro shots about 2-3 times a year, so I do not do it often.

But how well is it actually working? Has anyone compared (or know where I can find a comparison) to a good lens, say the 105 Micro?

I realize the problem -- every combination of lens + 6T is a bit different. But I don't have a lens to try (or a nearby store to go try one in).

If I'm (in some arbitrary, non-scientific way) 80% as good, or maybe less, I'm happy. If on the other hand the dedicated macro lens is just wildly better, I want to either get one, or at least rent and try one.

Same question might apply to extension tubes. I've followed a lot of the discussions here somewhat, including that the design of non-macro lenses means that while there is no interference in the optical path, non-Macro lenses are just not made to focus that close and that has some degradation.

Anyone know of a site where someone has done some comparisons of various combinations head to head? Or have you, and can comment?

Here's a heavily cropped sample from the D800 with the 6T on a 70-300 zoom (F11). It's 1:1 in both senses of the word, the magnification (roughly) and the resolution of the image.

It's not an interesting picture, but is at least somewhat sharp (I'm not sure where the almost noise-like artifacts are from). What would this have looked like with the 105, would my eyes pop out, or would I squint to tell the difference?

Click on image to view larger version



Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com


Attachment#1 (jpg file)

Subject
ID
Reply message RE: Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens
1
Reply message RE: Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens
2
Reply message RE: Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens
3
     Reply message RE: Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens
4
          Reply message RE: Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens
5
               Reply message RE: Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens
6
                    Reply message RE: Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens
7
                         Reply message RE: Nikon 6T on 300 vs. a real Macro lens
8

G