Nikon micro lens choice - DPChallenge Forums

09/05/2008 06:55:45 PM · #1

I'm about to buy a macro for my D300, and am leaning towards the 60mm 2.8, but also considering the 105mm 2.8. Do any of you Nikonians have experience of both, or can you recommend one above the other? Also, there are two editions of the 60mm and quite a big price difference - anyone know the difference in real terms?

ryand

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/05/2008 07:06:13 PM · #2

I have heard good things about the 60 as well as the 105mm. The difference between the 60mm's is that the cheaper one is the older one. The more expensive is a bit newer. It has internal focus (not sure if the older had that), it is also af-s, which means the focus is driven by an internal focus motor rather than driven by the focus in the body motor. This gives it the faster focusing as well as quieter. The 105mm is a better working distance, but it is also more expensive as could be expected. I've heard people complain about the 60mm's working distance, but never used it.

eta: in the new 60mm the aperture ring is also not present.

Message edited by author 2008-09-05 19:06:49.

DarkRider

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/05/2008 07:08:32 PM · #3

Your best bet is to take a bunch of pics with both and see what you prefer. I have a Sigma 105 and love it but if the Nikon 105VR was out I think I would have went with it. A 105 would add some range to your lens collection over the 60mm. Something to consider.

togtog

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/05/2008 07:15:05 PM · #4

If I understand this review correctly the newer lens the AFS one, has a sharper image across fstops. His lens models aren't the easiest to read and compare to the models actually for sale.

ETA: hahaha, forgot the link //www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

Message edited by author 2008-09-05 19:15:19.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

09/05/2008 07:22:17 PM · #5

If you are going to do mostly macro the 105mm might be the best bet because of the working distance but if you want a great macro lens that can double as a great portrait lens then the 60mm is the way to go.

onesaint

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

09/05/2008 07:30:58 PM · #6

thegrandwazoo said. Ive got the 60 2.8 and its great. In fact i sometime have a hard time not getting a ton of bokeh out of it. though i know those who shoot head shots prefer the 105. I just use my 80-200 for that.

cryan

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Nikon

09/05/2008 07:32:34 PM · #7

I use the Sigma 150mm 2.8 love it. The only problem I have with it,is that it is a monster of a lens and heavy. But I can't complain about the working distance nor the results. Aonther very good option is the Tamron 90mm2.8.

Message edited by author 2008-09-05 19:33:16.

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

09/05/2008 08:03:34 PM · #8

I recently switched from the Sigma 105 to the new Nikon 60 AF-S 2.8. The Sigma took wonderful photos but it was slower to focus, loud and with no internal focus the barrel lengthened as you focused. I switched to the Nikon after they came out with the AF-S version. As you already know AF-S is very fast and silent. Also having a constant barrel length makes some macro shooting much easier. As for the working distance there is little if any difference due to the fact that the focus distance is measured from the �film plane�, ie. longer lens gives less room to subject from the lens even though you are a little (inches?) further away.

Hope that helps.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

09/05/2008 08:09:23 PM · #9

I have the older 60 and the older (non-vr) 105.

My understanding is that the main difference between the old 60 and the new is that the new has AF-S, which is necessary for autofocus on the D40 or D60. I think someone mentioned a review where the new 60 is sharper than the old, but frankly, you can slice bread with the old 60 at macro distances and apertures. It is noticeably *not* sharp at long distances, though. If you're planning on using the lens to shoot at macro distances, I'd go for the cheaper one. If you're using it as a replacement for a normal lens at distance, spend the money and get the new 60.

The older 105 is a mixed bag. If you can get it for a good price, it can be useful. But....It only goes to 2:1 (the new 105 goes to 1:1, has VR, and is overall, an excellent lens). To get the old 105 to 1:1 you have to put 52.5mm of extension tubes on it, which reduces the working distance down to something close to the working distance for the 60. At 2:1, though, it's a nice lens.

Anyway...If you're shooting bugs and need the working distance, get the 105. If you're just shooting small things that don't move much, save your money. The 60 is cheaper, smaller, and easier to work with than the longer 105.

andrewt

Nikon D810

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

09/05/2008 08:11:25 PM · #10

I use the 105mm micro nikkor. Hell of a lens , extremely sharp, handles really well. The only weakness with this lens is the noise the VR makes when you are shooting sensitive insects at macro range. There are occasions where the noise scared off the subject. Of course you could switch it off, but this is a very minor weakness.
I also use a 150mm Sigma APO DG , another excellent lens & I like it for it's better working distance.

ralph

Nikon Z9

09/05/2008 09:35:34 PM · #11

.. i've said this before ..
i have 60/105/200 and the more esoteric 70-180/85pc
my ranking

image quality
200 hands down
70-180
85pc
60
105

ease of use
70-180
60
105
200
85pc

no i don't own the 105vr ....

jettyimages

09/05/2008 10:19:05 PM · #12

thanks everyone, I'm still confused but slightly more enlightened. I think that's a permanent state of being for most photographers, isn't it ;-)
Ralph, if you ever get sick of any of those beautiful lenses of yours, please let me know. A tilt shift micro??? I had no idea, but it wets the appetite. I do a lot of real estate work and have been also saving for the wider tilt shift to help me out there...
Do you not own the 105 vr because you don't want it, or because you haven't bought it yet?

ralph

Nikon Z9

09/05/2008 11:50:18 PM · #13

Originally posted by jettyimages:

Do you not own the 105 vr because you don't want it, or because you haven't bought it yet?

because the 105 is the least useful length / really the 200mm is king & is better than ANY other (of course it is the most $$) -- and the 70-180 covers the range of the 105 as well -
(also i had bought the 105new before the 105vr came out .. )

i like having the set (even when i don't use them often / braging rights :P

also to note the 85pc & the 70-180 are only 1:2 all the other modern lenses are 1:1 (higher magnification)

Quigley

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

09/06/2008 12:22:04 AM · #14

I have the 105vr and LOVE it. I passed on the 60 and didn't have a 200 to compare the 105 with.

MAX!

levyj413

Nikon D7100

09/06/2008 12:37:18 AM · #15

I literally went through this decision two weeks ago. Until now, I've been primarily using the Nikon 50/1.8 on extension tubes for macros. I've gotten good results (including a 16x20 on my wall), but it's a bit of a pain to use, and the working distance is tiny. Just no way I could imagine shooting live subjects with that setup.

I have great lenses for the various focal lengths, so what I wanted was a good macro lens. And for that purpose, it seemed to me that nothing beats working distance. So I wanted it long. That led me to the Nikon Micro 200.

Then I remembered my friend

noraneko raved about her Sigma 180, and then I realized

fir3bird has the same lens for Nikon, and both of them have taken fantastic macros images with it. And both of them praised it without reservation when I emailed them.

That, plus the fact that it's $800 vs. $1400, and I was done. I'm lucky enough that I can afford pretty expensive lenses, and I've never regretted buying the $1600 70-200 VR. But still, why spend when I don't have to? It arrived on Wed., so can you say "Shallow DOF challenge"? :)

I'm so used to being right on top of macro subjects that the 9 inches needed between the end of the lens and the subject at 1:1 is taking me by surprise. :)

Message edited by author 2008-09-06 00:44:14.

togtog