Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Which Nikon macro lens, 60mm or 105mm?

Reply
Thread Tools

Which Nikon macro lens, 60mm or 105mm?

 
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>
>
> For a 1.5x DSLR, I'd get the 60mm. Gives you 90mm effective, and
> lower price and smaller lighter lens. At least in the absence of any
> special projects where 150mm effective is specially desirable.


Excellent point. I looked at it the other way around.

How is the bokeh of the 60mm? Would (at eff. 90mm) it make a
good portrait lens...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tom Scales
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004

"Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:UnJ_c.510$(E-Mail Removed)...
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> For a 1.5x DSLR, I'd get the 60mm. Gives you 90mm effective, and
>> lower price and smaller lighter lens. At least in the absence of any
>> special projects where 150mm effective is specially desirable.

>
> Excellent point. I looked at it the other way around.
>
> How is the bokeh of the 60mm? Would (at eff. 90mm) it make a good
> portrait lens...
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
> --

The bokeh is good, but not nearly as smooth as my Olympus Zuiko 90 f/2
Macro.

Tom


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004
"greg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:8kw_c.319747$gE.156702@pd7tw3no:

> The lenses are, of course:
> - Nikon 60mm f/2.8D
> - Nikon 105mm f/2.8D
>


I had the 60mm AF for a while, and it was a great lens. You do need to get
really close, which might not be so good for bugs and things that move. I
eventually bought the long extention tube, to get really close, but I never
used it much.

The 60 is also a flat field lens, so it makes and excellent copy lens. I
don't know about the 105 in that regard. The 60 is very light, so it makes
a decent walking around lens, but it is large (for the focus extention).

Given no specific plans, you might consider which other lenses you have or
plan to acquire, and buy the one that is least alike.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004

"SkyPilot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Greg,
>
> Don't over look the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D AF. It is also macro.
>

Yes, but my 105 macro is sharper in the macro range than my 28-105.

The 60mm is very good for copying documents, but you will need to get much
too close on occasion.
The 200mm is very good for taking shots of dangerous subjects (rattlesnakes
for example) because you can get a frame filling shot from quite a distance
away.
The 105mm is not so good for copying documents but allows some extra
distance away.

Only you know what kind of pictures you want to make so only you can decide
which of these best meets your needs.
Jim


 
Reply With Quote
 
Apteryx
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004
"greg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:8kw_c.319747$gE.156702@pd7tw3no...
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I

have
> no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for

nature,
> anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.
>
> The lenses are, of course:
> - Nikon 60mm f/2.8D
> - Nikon 105mm f/2.8D
>
> I would have assumed that the 105mm would be better, because then I

wouldn't
> HAVE to get as close, but then I've heard that the 60mm is sharper.


I went with the 60mm, and have been very happy with it. The right focal
length for a macro lens is always a compromise if you are only going to
have one, and traditionally 90mm or 105mm have been thought to be the
best compromise for 35mm cameras. But the 1.5x crop factor with the D70
puts the 60mm effectively into that range, while still having the
advantages of better sharpness, lower cost, and probably greater
usefulness as a general purpose and portrait lens.

If you are going for the greatest possible magnification at the minimum
focusing distance, the 105 will still have the advantage of giving that
1:1 magnification at a greater focusing distance. But while that may
make some pictures possible with it that would miss with the 60mm, it is
not an absolute - it merely means that you can photograph instects at
1:1 if they will allow you to approach to 31.4cm (the 105mm's min
focussing distance) but not to 21.9cm (the 60mm's minimum).

--
Apteryx
Treat anger like gold. Spend it wisely or not at all.


 
Reply With Quote
 
vhl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004
Apteryx <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 1:1 magnification at a greater focusing distance. But while that may
> make some pictures possible with it that would miss with the 60mm, it is
> not an absolute - it merely means that you can photograph instects at
> 1:1 if they will allow you to approach to 31.4cm (the 105mm's min
> focussing distance) but not to 21.9cm (the 60mm's minimum).


Is this from the focal plane or the front of the lens. I recall that
at 1:1 the 60mm is much less than that from the front of the lens.
I only get about 40cm from the front of my 180mm 1:1.


--
Vin
Melbourne, Australia
Remove no and spam from both sides of the @ sign email address to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gadgets
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004
From the optical centre of the lens I think - the rear nodal point. For
some lens designs, this can actually be in front of the lens, but generally
somewhere in the back third to middle is common.

Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Apteryx
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004
"vhl" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3hpghc.2i7.ln@192.168.11.2...
> Apteryx <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > 1:1 magnification at a greater focusing distance. But while that

may
> > make some pictures possible with it that would miss with the 60mm,

it is
> > not an absolute - it merely means that you can photograph instects

at
> > 1:1 if they will allow you to approach to 31.4cm (the 105mm's min
> > focussing distance) but not to 21.9cm (the 60mm's minimum).

>
> Is this from the focal plane or the front of the lens. I recall that
> at 1:1 the 60mm is much less than that from the front of the lens.
> I only get about 40cm from the front of my 180mm 1:1.


Good point, as Gadget says I think this minimum focus is from a
theoretical point. Testing it now the point of focus is only about 7cm
from the front of the lens (the front of the barrel, or a filter if
attached, because of course even at minimum focus the front element is
still a little recessed). But I don't know what the comparble figure is
for the 105mm.

--
Apteryx
Treat anger like gold. Spend it wisely or not at all.


 
Reply With Quote
 
greg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004
"greg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:8kw_c.319747$gE.156702@pd7tw3no...
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I

have
> no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for

nature,
> anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.
>
> The lenses are, of course:
> - Nikon 60mm f/2.8D
> - Nikon 105mm f/2.8D
>
> I would have assumed that the 105mm would be better, because then I

wouldn't
> HAVE to get as close, but then I've heard that the 60mm is sharper.



Thanks everyone! For several reasons that people have raised in this thread
(especially the distance-to-object factor and the fact that I already have a
50mm 1.8 lens), I think I'll go for the 105.

G


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon efs 60mm f2.8 macro underexposure wide-open Geoffrey Digital Photography 0 10-11-2006 10:57 AM
Mamiya Sekor 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 4 10-14-2005 10:37 PM
New Canon EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro? John A. Stovall Digital Photography 19 04-04-2005 03:06 AM
in S.E. Asia : Canon EOS 300d with 100 macro ED vs. Nikon D70 with Nikon 105 macro ? J. Cod Digital Photography 0 09-29-2004 05:46 AM
Is there a Nikon 2x teleconverter that will AF with D100 and Nikkor 60mm 2.8?? nick Digital Photography 3 11-30-2003 06:42 PM



Advertisments