Micro Nikkor AF 60mm vs 105mm (D70)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ken Tough, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. Ken Tough

    Ken Tough Guest

    I'm tossing around the idea of one of these, but the AF 60mm f2.8D
    is maybe half the price of the AF 105mm f2.8D. Given the D70's 1.5x
    crop, it seems to me it might actually be a more useful size too
    (for macro work).

    Any opinions on comparing the two lenses?

    --
    Ken Tough
     
    Ken Tough, Mar 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ken Tough

    Tom Scales Guest

    "Ken Tough" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I'm tossing around the idea of one of these, but the AF 60mm f2.8D
    > is maybe half the price of the AF 105mm f2.8D. Given the D70's 1.5x
    > crop, it seems to me it might actually be a more useful size too
    > (for macro work).
    >
    > Any opinions on comparing the two lenses?
    >
    > --
    > Ken Tough


    can't compare the two, but own and use the 60/2.8 on my D70. The results
    are fantastic.


    tOM
     
    Tom Scales, Mar 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Tom Scales" <> wrote in message
    news:O8y_d.157178$...

    > can't compare the two, but own and use the 60/2.8 on my D70. The results
    > are fantastic.


    I use the 105mm on my D70 and I can say it's fantastic. I haven't used a
    60mm on my D70, but from what I read the major difference is you get a
    greater minimum focusing distance with the 105mm. To me, having this extra
    distance is a great advantage for different lighting techniques. That said,
    I think you will enjoy either lens equally and won't find any shortcomings
    with either one. I always keep my eyes open on eBay to pick up a reasonably
    priced late model 60mm to compliment my 105mm, but haven't been lucky enough
    to snag one.



    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Ken Tough

    Kurt Rubin Guest

    "Ken Tough" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    >
    > I'm tossing around the idea of one of these, but the AF 60mm f2.8D
    > is maybe half the price of the AF 105mm f2.8D. Given the D70's 1.5x
    > crop, it seems to me it might actually be a more useful size too
    > (for macro work).
    >
    > Any opinions on comparing the two lenses?



    Do they have inner-focussing?
    Then keep in mind that the 105 will be only about a 60-65 at 1:1.
     
    Kurt Rubin, Mar 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Ken Tough

    Alan Browne Guest

    Ken Tough wrote:

    > I'm tossing around the idea of one of these, but the AF 60mm f2.8D
    > is maybe half the price of the AF 105mm f2.8D. Given the D70's 1.5x
    > crop, it seems to me it might actually be a more useful size too
    > (for macro work).


    It makes no difference to macro work at all what size the crop is.

    For a 1:1 macro, the image size formed at the sensor plane is the same
    size regardless. The cropped sensor is smaller, so you get a smaller
    overall image, but the subject matter is not larger becasue of it.

    IOW, a 5mm long subject at 1:1 will make a 5mm long image on the sensor
    whether it is 36x24 film or 24 x 16 CCD.

    > Any opinions on comparing the two lenses?


    Macro is easier at the longer focal length. You can work a bit further
    from the subject and allow more light in. OTOH the DOF is shallower and
    harder to control.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Ken Tough

    Alan Browne Guest

    Kurt Rubin wrote:

    >
    >
    > Do they have inner-focussing? Then keep in mind that the 105 will be
    > only about a 60-65 at 1:1.


    The 105 will be a 105. There is absolutely no change in focal length.

    At 1:1 an object of length x will form an image of length x on the sensor.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Ken Tough

    Kurt Rubin Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:d1er4o$g5r$...
    > Kurt Rubin wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Do they have inner-focussing? Then keep in mind that the 105 will be
    >> only about a 60-65 at 1:1.

    >
    > The 105 will be a 105. There is absolutely no change in focal length.


    Except it has inner-focussing. I don't know that. Perhaps 60-65 is a bit
    exaggerating. 70-75 might be more reasonable.
     
    Kurt Rubin, Mar 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Ken Tough

    Alan Browne Guest

    Kurt Rubin wrote:

    > "Alan Browne" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:d1er4o$g5r$...
    >
    >>Kurt Rubin wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Do they have inner-focussing? Then keep in mind that the 105 will be
    >>>only about a 60-65 at 1:1.

    >>
    >>The 105 will be a 105. There is absolutely no change in focal length.

    >
    >
    > Except it has inner-focussing. I don't know that. Perhaps 60-65 is a bit
    > exaggerating. 70-75 might be more reasonable.


    But 105 is correct.

    In any case, cropping increases the "apparent" focal length, it does not
    reduce it.



    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Ken Tough

    Kurt Rubin Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:QAC_d.52173$...
    >>>The 105 will be a 105. There is absolutely no change in focal length.

    >>
    >> Except it has inner-focussing. I don't know that. Perhaps 60-65 is a bit
    >> exaggerating. 70-75 might be more reasonable.

    >
    > But 105 is correct.
    >
    > In any case, cropping increases the "apparent" focal length, it does not
    > reduce it.


    Well, I was talking about inner-focussing, not crop, but I have looked it
    up, the lens does not have IF.
     
    Kurt Rubin, Mar 18, 2005
    #9
  10. "Kurt Rubin" <> writes:
    > Well, I was talking about inner-focussing, not crop, but I have looked it
    > up, the lens does not have IF.


    Even if they don't call it IF, the 2.8/105 AF still uses the
    focal-length shortening trick to get to 1:1 without needing
    too much extension.
    Easily seen by comparing it to an older extension-only lens,
    such as the 4/105 Micro. Working distances at 1:1:

    from film plane filter thread
    4/105 with PN-11 42 cm 17.5 cm
    2.8/105 31.4 cm 13.6 cm

    Regards,
    Chris

    --
    Con: Recording medium requires chemical processing before it can be read.
    - from a Popular Photography review of the Nikon F6
     
    Christoph Breitkopf, Mar 18, 2005
    #10
  11. On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:19:49 +0200, Ken Tough <>
    wrote:

    >I'm tossing around the idea of one of these, but the AF 60mm f2.8D
    >is maybe half the price of the AF 105mm f2.8D. Given the D70's 1.5x


    60/2.8 micro and 105/2.8 micro give you the same reproduction ratio:
    1:1. with the 1.5x crop factor of d70, this means that both the lenses
    reach 1.5:1.

    what makes difference is that with 105 you may remain far away from
    the subject by a couple of inches more than with the 60. this is a
    nice thing.

    one more thing pro the 105 is that i'm being told that often 60/2.8
    micro has leaks of oil into the diaphragm blades.

    just my 2 eurocents.
    --
    Gianni Rondinini
    Icem s.r.l. - http://www.icem.it
    Tel: +39 0545 78036
    Fax: +39 0545 78727
     
    Gianni Rondinini, Mar 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Ken Tough

    Ken Tough Guest

    Gianni Rondinini <> wrote:

    >what makes difference is that with 105 you may remain far away from
    >the subject by a couple of inches more than with the 60. this is a
    >nice thing.


    Right, I could see that. So for the distance I have to be from
    some subject (say, a bee) with a 35mm camera and a 105mm lens,
    I could be roughly the same distance away with a D70 and the 60mm
    lens, to make the same subject full frame.

    >one more thing pro the 105 is that i'm being told that often 60/2.8
    >micro has leaks of oil into the diaphragm blades.


    I've seen that said about, I think, the 35mm Nikon? Can be nasty
    if you don't use it all the time, I think (maybe because it sits
    in the same position too long and the oil collects).

    cheers


    --
    Ken Tough
     
    Ken Tough, Mar 18, 2005
    #12
  13. Ken Tough

    Robert Scott Guest

    "Ken Tough" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >>one more thing pro the 105 is that i'm being told that often 60/2.8
    >>micro has leaks of oil into the diaphragm blades.

    >
    > I've seen that said about, I think, the 35mm Nikon? Can be nasty
    > if you don't use it all the time, I think (maybe because it sits
    > in the same position too long and the oil collects).



    I believe it's actually the AIS 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor that is infamous for
    oil on the diaphragm. (I've had one for a l-o-n-g time and have had no
    trouble.)

    Good shooting,
    Bob Scott
     
    Robert Scott, Mar 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Ken Tough

    Sander Vesik Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Kurt Rubin <> wrote:
    >
    > "Alan Browne" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:d1er4o$g5r$...
    > > Kurt Rubin wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Do they have inner-focussing? Then keep in mind that the 105 will be
    > >> only about a 60-65 at 1:1.

    > >
    > > The 105 will be a 105. There is absolutely no change in focal length.

    >
    > Except it has inner-focussing. I don't know that. Perhaps 60-65 is a bit
    > exaggerating. 70-75 might be more reasonable.
    >


    Inner focusing is just the same as rear focusing and "front focusing".
    There is no magic to moving the front element. If the lens really became
    a lens with a 60mm lens at 1:1, it would also experience a rather
    stunning aperture enlargement which many people would have noticed.

    That it becomes a 100mm lens at 1:1 (or a 110mm) or something in that
    ballbark might be believable but its really hard to credit even 75mm.

    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
     
    Sander Vesik, Mar 20, 2005
    #14
  15. On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:16:44 +0200, Ken Tough <>
    wrote:

    >some subject (say, a bee) with a 35mm camera and a 105mm lens,
    >I could be roughly the same distance away with a D70 and the 60mm
    >lens, to make the same subject full frame.


    that's probably correct. i don't doubt on what you say: i only mean
    that macro lenses are strange, for some things, and not all the
    "rules" of regular lenses are ok for macro lenses.

    even because the "real" focal length of macro lenses isn't the same at
    every reproduction ratio --don't ask me why--: on nikonians.org there
    are few articles on macrophotography that talk about this.
    for example, 105/2.8 micro at 1:1 repro-ratio has a focal length of
    85mm, not 105. then i guess that a 60/2.8 micro isn't a 60mm at 1:1
    ratio.
    since this is a strange thing by itself, i expect the "curve" of focal
    length to be non linear and i wouldn't bet that at the same
    reproduction ration a 105 and a 60mm would have focusing distances in
    the same ratio that an ordinary 105 and an ordinary 60 would have.

    i hope i was clear enough: i know i have problems with english but,
    hey, i'm italian and italy is probably the country with less
    foreign-languages-speaking people :)

    >if you don't use it all the time, I think (maybe because it sits
    >in the same position too long and the oil collects).


    this may be a cause, but it seems to be a flaw in the lens design,
    because the 60/2.8 micro has a far higher tendence to do this than
    other lenses.

    see you in south west usa next august ;)
    --
    Gianni Rondinini
    Icem s.r.l. - http://www.icem.it
    Tel: +39 0545 78036
    Fax: +39 0545 78727
     
    Gianni Rondinini, Mar 21, 2005
    #15
  16. >60/2.8 micro and 105/2.8 micro give you the same reproduction ratio:
    >1:1. with the 1.5x crop factor of d70, this means that both the lenses
    >reach 1.5:1.


    This is a common misconception. The 1.5x factor does NOT make the
    lenses 1.5:1. Whether on a film camera or on a digital camera, the
    lenses are both 1:1.

    The only difference is that in expanding shots from both cameras to
    the same size enlargement, say, 4x6, the image from the digital camera
    will be larger, because it captures less information.

    When you think of what the 1.5x crop factor does on a digital camera,
    think of taking a 35mm, and cutting off a border so you only have the
    middle to work with.

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 22, 2005
    #16
  17. Ken Tough

    ian lincoln Guest

    "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <> wrote in message
    news:EVJ%d.2944$%...
    > >60/2.8 micro and 105/2.8 micro give you the same reproduction ratio:
    >>1:1. with the 1.5x crop factor of d70, this means that both the lenses
    >>reach 1.5:1.

    >
    > This is a common misconception. The 1.5x factor does NOT make the
    > lenses 1.5:1. Whether on a film camera or on a digital camera, the
    > lenses are both 1:1.
    >
    > The only difference is that in expanding shots from both cameras to
    > the same size enlargement, say, 4x6, the image from the digital camera
    > will be larger, because it captures less information.
    >
    > When you think of what the 1.5x crop factor does on a digital camera,
    > think of taking a 35mm, and cutting off a border so you only have the
    > middle to work with.



    I think it would be simpler to say that the angle of view for a given focal
    length. And yes that view is arrived at by cropping rather than an actual
    change of focal length.
     
    ian lincoln, Mar 22, 2005
    #17
  18. On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:46:28 GMT, (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
    wrote:

    >This is a common misconception. The 1.5x factor does NOT make the
    >lenses 1.5:1. Whether on a film camera or on a digital camera, the
    >lenses are both 1:1.


    you are right. my one was a concise way to say what you said.
    at the practical stage, what you get is a higher reproduction ratio
    with digital cropped image than the traditional film one, but the lens
    reproduction ratio is the same for the 2 different supports.

    >think of taking a 35mm, and cutting off a border so you only have the
    >middle to work with.


    and that's the reason for which i *didn't* get a 12-24dx for my
    d100...

    regards,
    --
    Gianni Rondinini
    Icem s.r.l. - http://www.icem.it
    Tel: +39 0545 78036
    Fax: +39 0545 78727
     
    Gianni Rondinini, Mar 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Ken Tough

    Tom Scales Guest

    "Gianni Rondinini" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > and that's the reason for which i *didn't* get a 12-24dx for my
    > d100...
    >
    > regards,
    > --
    > Gianni Rondinini


    Then you've missed out on an INCREDIBLE lens.
     
    Tom Scales, Mar 22, 2005
    #19
  20. On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:32:06 GMT, "Tom Scales" <>
    wrote:

    >Then you've missed out on an INCREDIBLE lens.


    i shot a couple of dozens of pictures with the nikon 12-24/4g i've
    borrowed from a friend of mine, but i didn't like the extreme
    perspective of that ultra-wide lens. i'm not the kind of ultrawide
    angle lenses, but i saw it was extremely sharp, with no distortion and
    everything you may want from a lens.
    17-55/2.8 is enough for my desire of wide angles, at least at the
    moment.

    bye!
    --
    Gianni Rondinini
    Icem s.r.l. - http://www.icem.it
    Tel: +39 0545 78036
    Fax: +39 0545 78727
     
    Gianni Rondinini, Mar 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. GTABuySell
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,160
    GTABuySell
    Jun 7, 2004
  2. Rita  Ä Berkowitz

    Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D vs. 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    486
    Gadgets
    Sep 27, 2004
  3. Thomas T. Veldhouse

    Nikkor 60mm Micro and D70?

    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Sep 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    539
    John Denk
    Sep 4, 2005
  4. Joe

    Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8

    Joe, Dec 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    305
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Nikon Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR vs. Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    859
Loading...

Share This Page