Choice of Lens for Wide Angle Macro

I am a nikon user and using Nikon D7000 currently. I am using nikon 40 mm f/2.8 macro lens for macro photography. I am much interested in:

1. ultra-wide angle macro photography where I would able to present the tiny subject with its habitation and with much depth of field that could depict the whole environment.
2. ultra wide landscape photography
3. camera trapping.

Recently I found Laowa 15mm. But that is a total manual lens and I do not find it in Indian market. An auto-focus lens would be better. Asking you for better solution. Please suggest any of its kind (and please mention the Laowa's one too if it desires).

Thanking you,
Arun.

I have missed an issue to mention in the post- this comment is for that:

PLEASE SUGGEST ANY ALTERNATIVE IDEAS LIKE COMBINATION OF TELE-CONVERTER OR EXTENSION TUBES OR BOTH OF THEM WITH ANY ULTRA-WIDE LENS ETC. TOO IF THEY WORK FOR WIDE MACRO PURPOSE.

Thank you.

For my Canon equipment, I find the 18-55mm kit lens good enough for wide angle macro work. I have seen friends using the 50mm f1.8, again with good results. I don't know if any 3rd parties produce 1:1 macro lenses shorter than 40mm. Depending on what quality of results you desire, you might choose to invest in a more expensive wide angle or wide angle zoom or standard FL lens. Canon has a lovely 10-18mm lens, which is again brilliant for wide angle photography of medium to large sized macro subjects. You may or may not want to go one more step further and invest in a fisheye lens. Whatever you choose, do consider (a) the minimum focusing distance, (b) the issue of the lens casting a shadow if it is very wide and you are using the built-in flash. I would bother too much about AF and AF performance if the other qualities of a lens are good, because with this kind of work AF would not matter much.
I use both Nikon and Canon equipment, but I have not used the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens much for macro-type work. I believe it might be as good as the Canon (which is good enough for me).

Arun,
There is no sense is going for a wide macro lens and trying to couple it with a teleconverter. You are already using a 40mm macro. It is a short lens and one needs to be very close. I find a lot of subjects feel threatened when my lens is close to them. Whatever light would be available would be blocked by the lens moving close. I personally face a big challenge in filming macro subjects as the camera and lens has to move very close. If not, the macro subjects become like very wide angle with the macro being small in that frame. If that is what you need, then just user your 40mm and shoot. Why buy another lens?

Where do you expect to use your ultra-wide angle lens? And how frequently?

I don't have much info about laowa lens.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abhishek Jamalabad

For my Canon equipment, I find the 18-55mm kit lens good enough for wide angle macro work. I have seen friends using the 50mm f1.8, again with good results. I don't know if any 3rd parties produce 1:1 macro lenses shorter than 40mm. Depending on what quality of results you desire, you might choose to invest in a more expensive wide angle or wide angle zoom or standard FL lens. Canon has a lovely 10-18mm lens, which is again brilliant for wide angle photography of medium to large sized macro subjects. You may or may not want to go one more step further and invest in a fisheye lens. Whatever you choose, do consider (a) the minimum focusing distance, (b) the issue of the lens casting a shadow if it is very wide and you are using the built-in flash. I would bother too much about AF and AF performance if the other qualities of a lens are good, because with this kind of work AF would not matter much.
I use both Nikon and Canon equipment, but I have not used the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens much for macro-type work. I believe it might be as good as the Canon (which is good enough for me).

---

Thank you Abhishek da for posting your opinion. I have nikon 18-105mm lens which I think is not enough for wide macro purpose or perhaps I am not enough skilled to do that job. I have also 35mm f1.8g lens. It is really very good lens and do its job quite well for medium and large size subjects. But for the little ones I have to crop my frame. I must confess that it was my habit to take an image and crop thereafter to a suitable frame. Now I am trying to avoid that habit. Thanks to IndiaWilds wherefrom I came to learn avoiding of cropping. So my query was. Would you help me informing any combination of extension tube and 18-105mm lens for macro photography?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Arun,
There is no sense is going for a wide macro lens and trying to couple it with a teleconverter. You are already using a 40mm macro. It is a short lens and one needs to be very close. I find a lot of subjects feel threatened when my lens is close to them. Whatever light would be available would be blocked by the lens moving close. I personally face a big challenge in filming macro subjects as the camera and lens has to move very close. If not, the macro subjects become like very wide angle with the macro being small in that frame. If that is what you need, then just user your 40mm and shoot. Why buy another lens?

Where do you expect to use your ultra-wide angle lens? And how frequently?

I don't have much info about laowa lens.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

---

Thank you Sabyasachi da. I actually fall in love with wide macro photography when I see some sample images of Laowa 15mm(1:1) macro lens. There was much depth of field in subjects, the total habitation appears well. And, as you say, I found it really difficult to make frames of many living-macro subjects in some reviews. They also use flash unit(s) with some home made diffuser(s) for the lighting purpose. And there was also use of very small aperture like f/22 or so. Even many of the techniques of wide angle macro photography have the same set-ups which are really really challenging. But if they all works well the result is just breathtaking to me. Though I do not know whether the images shown in reviews were full frame or cropped.

The concept of using teleconverter comes when I see some combination of fisheye lens and TCs for wide macro photography. Does TC cure up the fisheye effect to a reasonable degree?(Asking just for knowledge. I think I will not go for any from those.)

I would like to go with you and am thinking for my 35mm and 40mm macro with some change of my habit.

In that case of ultra-wide angle lens firstly I must say that I have no such lens(just kit lens 18-105mm). When I go to Purulia(W.B.) I found it would be better for some case of waterfalls photography(while clicking Bamni falls from halfway) and framming landscape during trecking with the total environment. I have interest in framing landscape and if the lens is a macro one I can do the two with just one equipment.

Thank you again for your kind advice.

The function of extension tubes is to reduce the minimum focusing distance and allow you to go closer. The 18-55 (not sure about the exact specs of the 18-105) lets you focus very close. I do not see why you would want to go closer than that. As Sabyasachi has said here, you will end up scaring your subject.
I am not sure whether you want 1:1 magnification, or a wide frame with the subject occupying a relatively small part. I think you might be a little confused about this. If you want 1:1 magnification of small subjects, then a dedicated macro lens, such as your 40mm macro, is the only good way to go. If you want wide frames showing the habitat, you will inevitably end up with the subject being small in the frame (which is fine, depending on your objective).

Thank you Abhishek da for your words. I think I should go with you and Sabyasachi da too. The magnification ratio that I want is actually depends on the subject's size(of course I am not going for microscopic subject). So, I wish to have possible high magnification. I think I am really in a mess and need for understanding the matter at first.