where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Well,I'm planning to buy the Nikon D700(or its successor if it's available by then) in one or two years,but I'm already thinking about the glass. I'd mainly like to do macro work(flowers,leaves,insects...) and I'm looking at the micro-nikkor af-s 60/2.8.
Now I want to know how well it performs on FX bodies(best would be some full-sized sample shots for pixelpeeping), and how well it serves the purposes I described above.
thx
Go for the 200mm Micro.
I just got the 105mm macro and all I can say is wow. I've never done any macro work before and it was pretty nuts. Even with the 105, focus at 1:1 is pretty close (on dx... Not sure how that works on fx) if bugs are your thing, and you have to have it 1:1, then you might want the 200mm (start saving). For flowers, the 105 is great. The problem with the 60mm is that you will be nose to Jose with your subject. This means that your lighting options are going to be limeted. Withthe 105, even my popup gets the job done at 1:1
Wow your planning on buying a D700 in two years?! I'm sure the replacement to the D700 will be replaced by then :)
But I agree with what Willis wrote.
All these comments are in use on a D90, so the multiplication of 1.5 works (in my mind) to my benefit.
I use all three macros from Nikon; 60, 105 and 200. They all have a place.
For my uses the 105 is the best all around lens. Although it is very large and heavy, it is not awkward to use. The autofocus is good, somewhat useful for close work, as is the VR. Most of the time, however, the VR is off and I manually focus because of the shallow depth of field. I get a very good yield and excellent shots with this lens. I use it very frequently.
The 200 is my most difficult to work with. It's not much heavier than the 105 and much more slender to hold. The ergonomics are almost the same as the 105. The autofocus is useless in all cases, unless you have unlimited time and patience, I leave it permanently turned off. I also find my yield low with this lens in comparison to the 60 or 105. But, when the shot works, it's has a somewhat transcendent quality that makes me shoot it quite a lot. The longer working distance is also very useful.
The 60 is small, light, very sharp and I only carry it when I need to go light. If needed, I could easily part with this lens.
Between the 105 and the 200... I'm glad I have both. I can shoot with the 200 and get almost nothing, which never happens with the 105, but sometimes when things work...
I also must admit I haven't had as much time with the 200, since I recently purchased it.
You must log in to post.
