I bought my first Macro lens ever a couple of weeks ago, this last weekend it was time to test this baby out. It's a Nikon 105 mm, 2.8 Micro lens. I've read some great reviews about this lens and if you don't want to cash up more then twice the price for a 200 mm macro lens this was the way to go.
First of I got to tell you, wow, the sharpness aren't from this world. I mean you can see things that are so small that you hardly see it with your own eyes until you magnify it on your screen, and it's really sharp. This has opened up a new world for me.
With the 1:1 ratio in the viewfinder you can discover all kinds of small things in the forest like a landscape in the moss or a stone with some cool texture. Add some water on the moss or on a flower and you have very cool reflections.
Some argue that it's too big and heavy in comparison to the 40 mm and the 85 mm, and sure I weighs more and is a bit more clumsy, or so I think sense I haven't had either the 40 mm or the 85 mm. But 99 times out of 100 I don't care because I almost always shoot on a tripod.
I even tried some HDR with the macro lens, see first photo beneath. And I'm pretty psyched about it, sure this one isn't one of my better shots, but I think about the possibilities with macro shots in hard lighting conditions.
I've talked to a portrait-photographer who has this lens in his camerabag and he says that it's one of his go to lenses. He loves the bokeh it creates and the sharpness, shallow dept of field etc. I haven't tried it on portraits so I'll take his word for it.
Can I recommend this lens? Yes, if you have the money I think it's a great lens. You can have so much fun with a macro lens, the possibilities enormous. Me I think I'll read up on "How to photograph a snowflake" and see If I can nail one.
You all have a great week, beneath there are some examples from this weekend's macro shots.