I've been considering picking up a macro lens. Wanted to know you guys thoughts on Nikon's 60mm and 105mm lenses, and any third party solutions.
I'm leaning toward the 105, but I've never really done any Macro work.
Thoughts on Macro Lenses
(90 posts) (39 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Hmm. Usual drill - what do you want to use it for ... I know, close-ups. What kind of close-ups? If you're looking for critters, the 105 is better as you have more working distance. If you're doing static work, like stamps, coins, etc., the 60 will probably be a better bet. That's just a start. I am using the 105 on my D300, but have a variety of macro and micro equipment for my film cameras.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Unless your going to shoot static close ups like what warprints said, I'd get the 105mm.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think the 105 is among Nikon's best lenses ever produced. It's heavy and bulky, but it's extended working distance when shooting wildlife, whether on the trail or in the garden makes this lens much better than the 60. Plus f2.8 at 105mm vs f2.8 at 60mm gives you the opportunity for shallower depth of field when you want it.
I have the 60, since I bought it first trying to save money. Too bad, it's very competence as a lens keeps me from selling it. Nothing not to love about it, small size, crisp details... I just seldom use it. It's not really long enough or fast enough for portrait work either and its a very unforgiving portrait lens (unlike Nikon's 85's).
When I want to shoot macro I always prefer the 105. With the price I sunk on the 60, I could have gotten the 1.7 TC for the 105, which could be fun, at least until a revised 200/4 is released.
Posted 3 years ago # -
105 was standard macro for full frame, on the other hand Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro is used today by some of the best professional photographers not only for macro but as a primary lens for everyday work on D3 and D3x.
For DX 60mm is long enough most of the time, but if you are serous full frame insect shooter then 400mm f/2.8G ED VR AF-S is your only option, closest focusing distance of 2.9m together with laser shutter trigger and couple of speed-lights, for 10000$ you will have what pros are using today.Posted 3 years ago # -
That was kind of my thought Ted. I've already got a 50mm 1.4, and the 24-70 2.8, so I'm not sure what the 60mm macro does for me outside of its macro applications. From what I can tell, its got a shorter minimum focus distance. Of course you have the balance that against the wider focal length... Are there any situations where the 60mm would be a better choice?
Also, I'm DX only at the moment, but plan on moving to FX within the next 2 years (provided the economy cooperates a little bit).
Posted 3 years ago # -
The only application I can think of where the 60 might be better would be for product shots or copy work.
Posted 3 years ago # -
As one who shoots macro every day of my life, I would say that the 105 micro is more practical, although I favor my 55mm Manual Focus micro, extension tubes and a old prime, or the minolta 50mm macro(yes I use an adapter) for the work I do. Try both and get the one that suits your style more.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Wow.. haven't seen this thread in a while. As it turns out I opted for the 105 macro... Don't regret it at all. Its an amazing lens, and great for portraits as well.
Posted 3 years ago # -
No buyers remorse then, huh? Good choice.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
I love my 105mm old school Ais lens. I've always wondered about the 200mm micro though. I heard its a real beauty...
Posted 3 years ago # -
The only real drawback is that I now own the 70-200. I haven't done a side by side comparison yet, but my guess is that its just as sharp. That makes the 105 strictly for macro work.
Not that its a bad thing, but I'm not convinced I do enough Macro to make it justify the cost. I don't think I'll sell it though. Just because I'm not doing much macro now doesn't mean I won't be soon. (It's to cold for the critters right now anyway).
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis said:
The only real drawback is that I now own the 70-200. I haven't done a side by side comparison yet, but my guess is that its just as sharp. That makes the 105 strictly for macro work.Not that its a bad thing, but I'm not convinced I do enough Macro to make it justify the cost. I don't think I'll sell it though. Just because I'm not doing much macro now doesn't mean I won't be soon. (It's to cold for the critters right now anyway).
Might be good for insects though, it's cold so they move slower.
Lazy. :D
Posted 3 years ago # -
If you have 70-200 only other thing you will need for macro is an extension ring.
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
If you have 70-200 only other thing you will need for macro is an extension ring.Extension rings have their place and you can have some fun with them but if you're going to do a lot of macro a dedicated macro lens is the only way to go. Not to mention, with a 70-200 you're going to need lots of extension tubes to magnify.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Kenko extension tube set works on all your lenses longer then 35, has very good IQ and will give you up to about 1:2 macro on 70-200 for 150$, and that is not so bad.
Of course 105 is much better, more useful, has 1:1 and is half the weight of 70-200 but it costs 800$.Posted 3 years ago # -
I have the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, it's a great non Nikkor lens.
For the price, I can't really complain. The optics are stunning and it doubles as a decent portrait / candid lens from this distance.
The AF is quite louder and can hunt at times, besides that I have no complaints.
I've also heard nothing but positive things about the Nikkor 105. Except the size and weight.
Some samples from my Tamron.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I use the 105 frequently, but my sister uses the Tamron 90 and 180 Macros and is very pleased. Her results are great too. I only use Nikon lenses, but am tempted by the Tamron Macros and the Tokina 11-16 Zoom. Other than the long Sigma lenses they seem the most respected Non-Nikon lenses for Nikon SLRs (other than the costly Zeiss).
Posted 3 years ago # -
It's hard to go wrong with a nikkor lens (hard to not impossible) However I have the sigma 105 macro and it has been a great lens for me. If you want to save a little money to put aside for your next lens then take a look into the sigma 105...
Posted 3 years ago # -
60mm micro!!
Gives you more "depth" than a 105. . .at the loss of working distance, but things look less "flat" with the 60 micro. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
I missed this thread until now. Thanks, HFD.
Regulator75 said:
I have the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, it's a great non Nikkor lens.For the price, I can't really complain. The optics are stunning and it doubles as a decent portrait / candid lens from this distance.
The AF is quite louder and can hunt at times, besides that I have no complaints.
I second regulator's comments on the Tamron 90 2.8. I don't notice loud autofocus (or not more than usual for a non-AF-S lens). It doesn't have great resistance to flare in non-macro situations, so I wouldn't use it for portrait work if you can afford the Nikkor 85 1.8 (a seriously non-macro lens—I think the MFD is over a meter with that one) or a nice zoom in that range.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Interesting old thread. I have since gotten the 200/4 AF Micro. Wonderful lens. I really can't say it's better than the 60 or 105, but I imagine it will last longer. It's big, heavy, much, much better on a tripod, yields less, but sometimes more interesting pictures. I really love having all three lenses to play with. The different angle(s) of view the lenses provide and their differing ability to separate elements from their surroundings makes each useful.
I now use all three lenses regularly - 200 - 40%, 105 - 40%, 60 - 20%. Truly a multitude of riches. If I could only have one - I'd get the 105. I use the 60 when I want to travel light or when I want to bring out more dimensions or have my subject placed in a wider environment. The 200 seems to separate me (great working distance), but also it also separates my subject from its surroundings. The 105 is pleasingly between the other two.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, I find auto-focus very useful sometimes for macro work (60 and 105 only). When I'm balancing in a awkward position to achieve the composition I want, letting the camera focus for me, while shooting multiple frames (no incremental cost when shooting digital) is the only way I can get anything.
I'm glad I kept that 60, but then I've never sold a Nikon or Zeiss lens. To precious to part with.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm very happy with my 105vr, had the same dilemma as willis some time ago and decided to go for the longer one, and I don't regret that decision, 105vr is a great lens with very fast and accurate AF. My only con is the fact it's getting darker when You focus closer, but that's just the way it's created.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
