Good macro lens ?

I have been into macro photography for sometime now and am really starting to want to get even more into it, about a year back i brought a little digital camera specifically for macro due to its high performance but i recently brought a nikon d3200 and have been wanting to use that instead of the digital as my main macro camera. About a week ago i picked up a brand new "Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm" lens as the reviews i had read about it said clearly that is is capable of taking 1-1 macro shots. However i went out a few days ago to test out its capability's and i soon realized very quickly that it has an annoying feature about it, when focused in very close the area of focus would shrink and shrink the more i went in to the point that once in a very close shot only about 20% of the image was in focus creating a long focus strip stretching the width of the image. This however is not the sort of way in which i would like to take photos. What im looking for is a lens that can take 1-1 macro shots but keep a large portion of the image in focus rather then a small strip of it. As i don't really know much about lenses i came to this forum to ask if anyone could recommend a a good lens with the requirements in which im looking for. i paid £190/$300 for the nikon lens and am looking to maybe spend a little more but due to a small budget i can't spend to much. i have included a image as to what i am getting out of the current lens that i just brought so you can see my issue. I'm looking for a lens that is best at flower and insect macro.

http://www.pictureshack.us/images/15815_DSC_0022.JPG

What f-stop were you using? Macros will have a very shallow depth of field as a general rule, unless you are focus stacking the image. As you move in closer the depth of field shrinks even at higher f-stops, which will give you more depth. Stacking a couple of images is how you get to see focus on most macros with a larger depth to them. I know that is how I always do it. Well when I am in the mood to shoot some.

I'm not to knowledgeable when it comes to photography terms so you have lost me at f-stop that's the first time i have ever heard that term so you will have to explain that to me. The macro in which i'm use to on my digital and on my other lenses such as my tamron 70-300 covers a large area even very close up and keeps it clear crisp quality through out different depths, where as this just has that strip which is absolutely useless for macro shots on stuff like flowers. all im really looking for is a decent lends that capable of covering a wide area and keeping that wide area in focus.

www.cambridgeincolour.com/learn-photography-concepts.htm

I understand most of that stuff already but thank you anyway.

I understand most of that stuff already but thank you anyway.

I am not trying to be unkind, but it's not at all clear that you do. The issue you raise here is the depth of field, which depends upon focal length, aperture, distance to subject, and circle of confusion. It is essentially a geometry issue. Spend some time on dofmaster.com, specifically experimenting with the calculator, to memorize what happens at various distances, apertures, etc. Since you volunteered that you are unfamiliar with the term "f-stop' a reasonable person would conclude that you do not understand much about photography, much less the terms of photography.

If that is incorrect, please forgive us for drawing conclusions based on the information you have provided.

For macro photography, the closer you get at a constant focal length, the shallower the DoF; it's just the way it is. You can deepen the DoF, holding the distance constant, with a shorter focal length (I'm guessing you used that Tamron closer to 70mm?) but by getting closer you counteract that. A 40mm lens is going to be extremely shallow up close. It's just the physics of the situation. Again, check out the DoF calculator.

That lens (the 40mm) has a minimum focus distance of .53 ft, or appr. 16 cm. At a distance of 95 cm (assuming you are comparing to the Tamron A17 which has that minimum focus distance), with an f/8 aperture on the 40 mm lens and a Nikon D3200, the DoF is 17 cm. That's the acceptable range of focus; you may think the part that is in focus is even more shallow. The same settings at 70 mm (using the Tamron) produce a DoF of 5.46 cm; at 300 mm it becomes 0.22 cm.

If you move the camera and 40 mm lens closer to your subject (e.g. 20 cm) at f/8, the DoF drops to 6.4 mm. That's 3/8 of an inch. Welcome to macro photography.

All this to say that a longer focal length puts you closer to the subject and drops the DoF; a shorter focal length and moving physically closer to the subject accomplishes the same the same thing. I can tell you that the 105mm macro is going to be even worse for you. I, however, adore min e.

You will need to look into focus stacking, multiple exposures, and a better understanding of how all this works.

Sorry I couldn't get your link to work, so seeing if I can embed it as a picture so that I can see what this is all about.

Cheers

Embedding a link like that isn't going to help. It's a 5MB file being served from an incredibly slow site.

Here's a PNG version, downsized to a more reasonable 1200x800. I somehow managed to get it to come through.

This looks exactly as one would expect a 40 mm macro lens to produce.


EXIF: 40 mm, f/4.5, ISO 400.

striker93 wrote: I understand most of that stuff already but thank you anyway.

 But you don't know what f-stops are?! 

??

Now I'm not 100% sure if you can use extension tubes on that 40mm, but might be worth looking into.  If you can, that might be a nice budget friendly way to get closer shots.  Also try out used camera retailers like www.KEH.com , they specialize in used gear.  You might be able to get a good deal on a used Nikon 105mm.  While on topic of 105mm, keep an eye out for Sigma 105mm lens too.  Full disclosure, I have not specifically used a Sigma 105mm, but I have used other glass of theirs and was happy with the performance.  Sigma will generally cost less too.   

Hope this helps

Alex, that doesn't help. A longer focal length is just going to make his problem worse, at a given distance. That's what I was attempting to explain above. The focal length primarily affects the denominator of the formula for DoF.  Distance to subject is also critical, which is why the experience with the Tamron led to some false conclusions about macro photography.

I also suggest the OP watch the video here:  www.photographytalk.com/forum/tips-and-t...nd-how-do-you-use-it

What he wants is going to require focus stacking. With the shallow DOF, even at smaller apertures, there is no other way to accomplish it. That said, the 40mm Micro Nikkor is suited for static subjects & copy work. The minimum focus distance puts you too close to your subject  to even consider using tubes with it. As it is, it's a royal pain trying to light your subject. Thus Alex's suggestion is one I'd recommend as well since you get a bit more working distance without the lens costing an arm & a leg & without the added weight & heft of the 150-200 mm macro lenses.. I have 6 different macro lenses ( including the older Sigma AF 105mm EX)... The 105mm 's get the bulk of the use... 

Good advice here guys and gals

Screamin Scott wrote: What he wants is going to require focus stacking. With the shallow DOF, even at smaller apertures, there is no other way to accomplish it. That said, the 40mm Micro Nikkor is suited for static subjects & copy work. The minimum focus distance puts you too close to your subject  to even consider using tubes with it.

Exactly!
And as I said image stacking is the only way if you want to get the whole thing in focus. And there is no way I would use tubes with my 40mm. The thing already goes too close to some of the things I shoot with it.