DSLRUsers.com

I am keen to know anyones thoughts on the differences between these two lenses......

this would not be used for strictly macro photos,

Can either be used as a good portrait lens?
I have read that the 60mm close focusing distance presents issues taking photos of say small animals,

Any comments welcome......

I just recently got my Sigma 105 DG Macro, so, I'm too far from being macro-expert. What I can tell - focal length is very important because you can keep longer distance from subject. Another point - as you're getting closer more light you're loosing. So if you intend to shoot macro you'll need proper tripod and light setup. I'm not sure if you'll be able to get good results with 60mm handheld even with flash. On the other hand 105mm bit long for portraits on digital.

Buy 50mm 1.4 for portraits and 105 for macro

I am awaiting the arival of my 50mm 1.8........

I had not even thought of the lost light being closer in so DOF may be an issue if you dont have a good light setup.....

olrac wrote:I am awaiting the arival of my 50mm 1.8........

I had not even thought of the lost light being closer in so DOF may be an issue if you dont have a good light setup.....

If you're awaiting 50mm 1.8 why care about 60mm macro? I have 50 1.8 for portrait or low light photos and 105mm for macro. At least, you can use 105mm for close-up portraits - for example framing just eyes and mouth

that makes total sense.....

now i just have to save the extra $ to get the extra 45 mm of lens hahahahaha

The 105mm is a compromise lens. It doesn't have the same quality of the 60mm, but it does give you more working distance.

There is absolutely no doubt though that optically the 60mm is a far better lens, it just depends what focal length you want.

According to some of my research these lenses are no match for the older style (55mm for example).

It is said that Nikon have reverted to making these lenses perform less well at infinity to begin with. On top of that, as one focusses closer so the focal length gets shorter in order to require less extension at close range. One report indicates that the focal length of the 105mm Micro is actually only 80mm at its closest range. This is not in keeping with normal Macro lens characteristics. I recently tested a brand new 60mm Micro-Nikkor/D2x combination in a studio-flash situation and the lens performed no better than the 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom at 60mm - althpough it would obviously focus much closer. This greatly disappointed me because I had really hoped that it would be a pearler.

sejanus wrote:The 105mm is a compromise lens. It doesn't have the same quality of the 60mm, but it does give you more working distance.

There is absolutely no doubt though that optically the 60mm is a far better lens, it just depends what focal length you want.

With 60mm it'd be too hard to shoot insects. Even 105 isn't really enough but 180mm or 200mm is way too expensive for an amateur. 60mm is good for still life and it might have better quality but I never had a chance to compare them side by side

olrac
what other lenses do you have ? Have you considered the possibility of a closeup lens ? ....As an example

This is like a filter that screws onto the front of your lens, which cuts down the minimum focussing distance. Of course there are drawbacks, but could potentially do the job (depending on how far into macro photography you want to get)

Close-up attachment 'filters' can be a very good solution - especially if you shell out the extra bucks for a two-element model. These correct the performance of a regular lens to favour close-up work thereby giving the best of two-worlds. Tehy're cheaper than a lens, smaller, lighter and can be used on various lenses if you choose judiciously and use stepup rings from your smaller diameter lenses.

Cheers,

I've seen a sweb site(cant find at moment) that used the old 70-300g lens with a close up filter thlat achieved excellent results.

Cheap as chips might be worth a try if on a budget


MATT

What length were you from the object in the studio?

The 60mm will only show it's benefits stopped down, and no further than say 70cm away. Up close though it will resolve a tremendous amount of detail.

Sheetshooter wrote:According to some of my research these lenses are
no match for the older style (55mm for example).

It is said that Nikon have reverted to making these lenses perform less well at infinity to begin with. On top of that, as one focusses closer so the focal length gets shorter in order to require less extension at close range. One report indicates that the focal length of the 105mm Micro is actually only 80mm at its closest range. This is not in keeping with normal Macro lens characteristics. I recently tested a brand new 60mm Micro-Nikkor/D2x combination in a studio-flash situation and the lens performed no better than the 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom at 60mm - althpough it would obviously focus much closer. This greatly disappointed me because I had really hoped that it would be a pearler.

Sheetshooter wrote:According to some of my research these lenses are no match for the older style (55mm for example).

Walter,

can I ask whether you are talking about the Ai Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 or is it a later/earlier version than this?

here is a link about the lens Ai Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5

I only ask because I'm interested in this one.

Huynie,

That post was so long ago I cannot really recall in detail what my research had indicated but the mentioned lens would have been the Ai Micro-Nikkor 55 f/3.5.

What did happen in the interim, however, was that I purchased the current AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D and am totally blown away by the results it returned on a D70s. It is a far more amazing lens in many respects than some reviewers would have you believe. So much so, in fact, that because the one I offered here for sale had no nibbles I am strongly considering keeping it and getting myself a D200 tomorrow to fit it onto.

Infinity focus across Sydney Harbour from Kitrribilli to Circular quay proved sensational - and that is over water - a scenario quite deleterious to resolution and contrast. Close-up it is bitingly sharp and exhibits no image flaws that I can detect.

Cheers,

I believe the 60 is capable of sharper images than the 105.

I own the 105, and the guy at the back has the 60.
The tradeoff is that you must be closer to the subject with the 60.

you may find it harder to light a subject with the 60 unless you have things like ring flashes.
The longer reach of the 105 makes it easier to use with the sb800.

I found also that some subjects get a tad unhappier with the "in your face"
attitude you need with the 60 to get the shots. this wont of course be a problem if you arent shooting stuff that can run away.
so you may have to decide what you mainly want to be taking macros of.

I also use my 70-300 kit lens with a nikon 5t closeup lens and that works ok for the money but not a patch on the 60 or 105.
I felt that I got more DOF from the micro nikkors, in any case the shots from the micro nikkors produced better images than from any of the close up lenses etc I messed with.

Now I want to get extension tubes or look at other means of achieving greater than 1:1

my 2 cents worth

Steve

Thanks for your answer guys,

I currently have a hard time deciding between the 55-60 micro and the 105 micro. I may sleep on it for a while longer.

huynhie wrote:Thanks for your answer guys,

I currently have a hard time deciding between the 55-60 micro and the 105 micro. I may sleep on it for a while longer.

Get one of each And you'll have fun with all of them.

Birddog114 wrote:

huynhie wrote:Thanks for your answer guys,

I currently have a hard time deciding between the 55-60 micro and the 105 micro. I may sleep on it for a while longer.

Get one of each And you'll have fun with all of them.

If I do that than the 200mm will also make it in my bag as well

Huynie,

If you decide on the 60mm we could talk turkey about this:

http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=12199&start=15

huynhie wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:

huynhie wrote:Thanks for your answer guys,

I currently have a hard time deciding between the 55-60 micro and the 105 micro. I may sleep on it for a while longer.

Get one of each And you'll have fun with all of them.

If I do that than the 200mm will also make it in my bag as well

Huynhie,
Leave the rest, only go for the 200/f4. you won't disappoint it.

If cost is a factor then I suggest buying a lens reversal ring for a 50mm lens...or any lens that you have. This will give superior quality macro to using closeup filters. Another good option is extension tubes. They have no optical elements so the quality of the taking lens is not compromised.

Matt. K wrote:If cost is a factor then I suggest buying a lens reversal ring for a 50mm lens...or any lens that you have. This will give superior quality macro to using closeup filters. Another good option is extension tubes. They have no optical elements so the quality of the taking lens is not compromised.

Thanks Matt,

I already have a 500D closeup lens. I have always been yearning for a true "micro" lens but have been sidetracked when I did have the chances to purchase one.

Hi,

I'm playing with Kenko extension tubes at the moment.
I borrowed a set of Kenko tubes from a collegue.
By doing this I have created a 70-200mm VR macro lens !
I have also taken this a step further and have created the
TC-17EII plus 70-200mm VR (119-340mm VR) macro lens !
This helps me keeping great distance from nasty creepy crawlys.
I'm also using the 50mm f1.4 and the kit lens.
The results are interesting and promising.
I'll try get around to shoot some interesting objects in a well documented fashion and post them for your information.
At the moment I only have some quick and dirty of the Kenko
box in which the extension cubes came in.

Regards,
CD

A Freudian slip:
I don't have a 50mm f1.4, mine is a 50mm f1.8

oops !

christiand wrote:A Freudian slip:
I don't have a 50mm f1.4, mine is a 50mm f1.8

oops !

Lusting after the 1.4 ?

I have to agree with BirdDog, for nature close-ups you can't beat the 200/f4. The added working distance is great.

As for 60 vs 105, the 105 used to double as a good portrait lens, albeit a bit overly sharp for portraits. This is a non-issue in the digital age of course. I've never quite understood the market niche for the 60. It isn't a flat-field macro lens, hence cannot be used on a copy stand (like the 55). I thought it was too short for a lot of nature close-ups. The only thing it had always going for it was its incredible sharpness in the macro range (I think it's so-so otherwise). I would have gone for the 105 any time.

Nowadays (after the 1.5 inflation) the 60 appears to occupy the short range portrait spot the 85 used to hold, while the 105 gets pushed out rather far. So it becomes a little harder to choose between them.

The coolest macro lens in the Nikon range at the moment is the 85/f2.8 PC IMHO. Its tilt ability gives incredible flexibility for macro product shots. It is also flat-field. Now, *that* would be a ripper lens to fondle at a mini-meet

I agree with Walter, too, good close-up lenses are a very handy way to go macro. The good achromats (like the Canons) don't sacrifice image quality. Plus, you don't lose any light as you do with tubes and macro lenses (which are lenses with built-in tubes). No need to buy big sizes, either. Just buy the 52mm and use a step-down ring on larger lenses.

Cheers
Steffen.