I will start this thread in the hopes that I can help anyone understand lenses. Get better lenses. Lenses are way more important than your camera body. 10x more important. The lens makes the image! Yes, I am thinking about DLSRs. Currently I use 2 bodies that cost $2.3K. I shoot with about 25 different lenses that cost about $45K. About the balance you should strive for if you are serious about getting great images. And, no, great lenses do not have to cost a lot. I have several that cost me $15 - $75. each and are capable of producing outstanding pictures. I buy and sell lenses on eBay. I currently have about 100 in my house. I have shot with and kept pictures from about 600 in the last 10 years. Just got a new (used $190.) lens in the mail today - Sunday mail delivery still warps my brain. It will become one of 5 lenses that I will assemble and call my travel kit. A great lens I might suggest you try depending on what you shoot and already own. I love taking pictures of flowers. I teach a class on that. Actually I teach a lot of photography classes. Been a professional photographer for over 40 years. Please ask me questions. No, there is not one best lens meant for everyone, sorry. So many of you have great collections of plants it makes me jealous. Just wish I was at your house to help you get better pictures of them. One of my specialties is shooting with vintage MF lenses that I have adapted to work on my DSLR. Lenses with character, emotion, style, and things missing from most modern lenses. Gene

Gene, if I find a tree I want to take a picture of, and it's in front of other trees, do you know any tricks to make that tree stand out in the picture instead of just blending in with the background?
Here's one I took the other day for an example.

And all I have is the camera built into my phone. I can't afford to buy anything else right now.

Wish I had some Sassafras trees. You did well, probably as well as you could do under the circumstances. Gene

Back onto lenses. Good lenses hold their value. Great lenses increase in value every year. One example. I bought what I consider to be the world's best lens for pix of butterflies an dragonflies. Used, $840. Used it for 3 years. Wonderful. Something got into me and I have to get its big brother. Way more expensive and, it turns out, not great at those subjects. Sold my lens for $1050. Hey, that is cheaper than renting. Gene

When it comes to flower pictures, my normal goal is to get pictures that look like paintings. Not documentary. Dave over in the Midwest forum is about to ask me what lens to get. New for me but I love it. Cost $198. used. I doubt you could do better bang for the buck. And, it will be the best portrait lens you own. Here are a few I just took. Tell me the big white flower is a Viburnum. On a large bush at my house. Gene

Is a Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm1:2.8G ED lens, in your opinion, good for flowers and/or minerals?

Yes, it would be. But, better would be something longer. Say 100mm, 150mm. Better perspective in the pictures and easier working distance with the same power. Which will make a big difference. When you look at a flower you do not usually see it from a couple of inches away which is where you will be taking the pix from with a 60mm. Sigma 150/2.8 APO used. GREAT lens, I had one. Then I traded up to the newer Sigma 150/2.8 OS APO macro lens. Bit better at much more money - you do not need it. Now I use the best macro lens currently being made, IMO. Sigma 180/2.8 OS APO macro. Even more money - again you do not need it. Get a used Sigma 150/2.8 macro from Keh.com or off eBay. If eBay scares you I can help. Before you buy one, send me a link to the page you are looking at. I can approve or not. I am a power seller on eBay and I teach a class on eBay. Also teach a macro photo class. Ask me more, please. Gene

Upon further thought. The Sigma 150/2.8 macro lens is probably one of the best (modern AF) lenses one could get for flower picture using a crop body DSLR. Comes with a decent size hood - a must have and a removable rotating tripod collar - another must have. It also is great for portraits And, this is rare in the macro lens world, has fast enough AF for sports. Especially when you consider the price you can get it at. Gene

When you get out to 180/200mm, 300mm you are able to also take amazing pictures of butterflies and dragonflies. Can not be done at 60mm. Gene

I agree that long focal lengths are most always better. I use a 60mm macro lens (120mm full frame equivalent) on my Olympus.

The "big white flower" looks to be a mock orange. All viburnum flowers have five petals.

Thanks.

And if anyone out there is really set on getting a 60mm macro lens, get a used Tamron 60/2. Sharper, faster, better. Around $200. I have one. Gene

Thanks Gene. I'll probably have some more questions on down the line.

Do ask more. I love sharing info that helps people. Gene

Gene I have a question. I will try to be concise but its complicated. I am having some challenges shooting in my garden when the subject has a low contrast. Insects on stems of the same color, brown birds with wooden fence in the background or shooting through leaves. My camera struggles to focus.
I shoot with Olympus an E-3 DSLR and one of the newer mirror-less (which I don't like as well). I originally shot film and slide. Digital has always left me feeling like I've lost control and have to waste time getting the camera to tell me what I can shoot.
The garden is dynamic and I need to shoot quickly.

Any suggestions?

Digital is no different than film. You still need to understand all the variables involved in making a good picture. Do not use AF. Contrast is about light. Do not shoot in the sun. Not sure what you mean by dynamic. I usually associate that word with movement. Why do you have to shoot quickly? I don't when it comes to gardens and flowers Please explain further. Gene

I have no desire to get a mirror-less body though things are headed their way. I do not need a light camera. Prefer something hefty, solid in my hands. Unless you get some adapters, the lens choices for mirror-less is severely limited. I must have great lenses. Dynamic, shoot quickly? If the wind is blowing and/or if the sun is shining I do not take pictures of flowers. Period. Gene

When I say dynamic I mean not static. Everything in the garden moves. All the wildlife is aware of my presence and seeks to avoid it. A breeze will change everything, flora and fauna. I find bees and butterflies challenging. The sun is constantly moving changing the light. I've missed a shot while changing a lens.
If I shoot manual focus will the through the lens viewfinder be an accurate representation of image sharpness?

Yes, butterflies are a challenge. How well you can MF depends on your skills and the camera/lens combo. Again, I do not shoot if the sun is shining or if there is a breeze. Gene

https://apm.activecommunities....