| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/20/2006 11:30:09 AM · #1 |
Hello,
Will it be much harder to hit the "focus sweet spot" on close-up macro shots with the Nikon 105mm as opposed to the 60mm?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
06/20/2006 11:45:49 AM · #2 |
| Yes, since the DOF decreases with focal length. |
|
|
|
06/20/2006 12:00:19 PM · #3 |
So other than being able to "be further away" from your subject, is it better to stick with a 60mm?
I say this because I just purchased a 105mm from ebay. I'm trying to decide on if I want to sell my 60mm. So any advise is helpful.
Thanks,
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Yes, since the DOF decreases with focal length. |
|
|
|
|
06/20/2006 12:03:43 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Yes, since the DOF decreases with focal length. |
yes, but... for a given magnification, the DoF is the same regardless of focal length. So for macro work, the focal length only really affects working distance, the foreground/background relationship (perspective) and shake. |
|
|
|
06/20/2006 12:10:56 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Yes, since the DOF decreases with focal length. |
yes, but... for a given magnification, the DoF is the same regardless of focal length. So for macro work, the focal length only really affects working distance, the foreground/background relationship (perspective) and shake. |
well said :-) |
|
|
|
06/20/2006 12:34:59 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Yes, since the DOF decreases with focal length. |
yes, but... for a given magnification, the DoF is the same regardless of focal length. So for macro work, the focal length only really affects working distance, the foreground/background relationship (perspective) and shake. |
well said :-) |
And it bears repeating yet again. At a given magnification (1:1, 1:2, whatever) DOF is the same regardless of the focal length of the lens. Counter-intuitive as it may seem, it's the truth.
And here's another factor: the "working distance" at a given magnification gets larger as the focal length increases, yes, but "working distance" is measured from the focal plane on the camera body to the subject. Yet, in real-world terms, the working distance that concerns us is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject.
Why does this matter? Because it lessens the discrepancy in working distances between the 105 and the 60. On Canon, at least, the 100mm lens is a couple inches longer than the very compact 60mm, so there isn't a lot of difference in lens-to-subject working distance between the two; a little bit, but not a heck of a lot.
This is mainly why I went with the 60mm myself; it is smaller, lighter, and MUCH easier to handhold at macro distances than the longer lens.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2006 05:48:48 PM · #7 |
The AF Nikkor 105mm f2.8 macro actually decreases focal length, so at its minimum focusing distance (max mag) its focal length is ironically 60mm. The 60mm also uses this focal length shortening in its design. The only short telephoto AF (chipped) lens that Nikon has made that doesn't use this design is the original AF 55mm f2.8, which had a bizarre trumpet-like extension to get to 1:1.
Unlike Bear_music I find medium telephoto (100-105mm) macros are more useful if for no other reason than better background isolation with their narrower angle of view. The extra working distance (even if its only an inch or two) allows more lightning options and increases the comfort zone for shy subjects.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 03:26:35 PM EST.
