Which Nikon macro lens, 60mm or 105mm?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by greg, Sep 5, 2004.

  1. greg

    greg Guest

    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.

    Anyone?

    Thanks in advance!
    G
    greg, Sep 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. greg

    [BnH] Guest

    I use the 60mm ones to snap jewelleries and sometimes human portraiture.
    I don't know bout the 105mm ones .... but with the 1.5x crop .. 90mm is far
    enough for my needs .

    =bob=

    "greg" <> 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.
    >
    > Anyone?
    >
    > Thanks in advance!
    > G
    >
    >
    [BnH], Sep 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. greg

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    greg <> wrote:

    > - 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.


    The 60mm is slightly sharper, but the 105mm is very good as well. The 60mm
    will probably be too short if you are interested in shooting stuff that's
    alive; you'll need to be only a few inches away. The 105 will let you get
    a little farther back -- not much, but enough to make a difference if you
    might scare something away or if you need to add light.

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 5, 2004
    #3
  4. greg

    Gadgets Guest

    I've been asking the same question, but I think saving $200 might see me go
    for the 60mm. From people I've contacted that used both, they all said
    optically they couldn't pick them apart. Main differences being size,
    weight and working distance as mentioned. The other thing to consider is
    that if you want to shoot at say 2:1 with tubes, you'll need a decent toilet
    roll for the 105!

    If portability and price aren't a problem, and you're not thinking of 2:1,
    then go for the 105... or maybe the 200!

    105 review here - he's used the 60, but doesn't have a review online:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#af

    Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com
    Gadgets, Sep 5, 2004
    #4
  5. greg

    Al Guest

    I have a film camera a F100. I have the Nikon 105mm and a Sigma
    180mm macro.

    I love the Nikon it is one of my favorite lens I use it to phograph
    flowers. But I bough the Sigma to photograph butterflys. I felt the
    extra magnification would be less stressfull on my subject.

    I was photgraphic a bee on a sunflower the other day. I was trying
    to fill the frame with the bee. I got a little to close and got
    chased. I guess I stressed out the bee.

    The 105mm will be 157.5 or 168 depending on the crop factor. Similar
    to my Sigma. I still feel the extra magnification is best when you
    photograph small animals. I would never use the Nikon 105 to
    photograph insects. I would be definitatly stressing out my subject.

    The Nikon 60 would be good for photographing flowers. But I would go
    with a longer lens if you want to photograph insects.


    Al
    http://www.bigalsoftware.com/



    On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:09:40 GMT, "greg" <> wrote:

    >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.
    >
    >Anyone?
    >
    >Thanks in advance!
    >G
    >
    Al, Sep 5, 2004
    #5
  6. greg

    SkyPilot Guest

    "greg" <> pounded on the keyboard and wrote:

    >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.
    >
    >Anyone?
    >
    >Thanks in advance!
    >G
    >


    Greg,

    Don't over look the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D AF. It is also macro.

    http://www.usefilm.com/image/527101.html
    http://www.usefilm.com/image/502748.html

    I picked mine up on eBay for $199

    Brian
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Brian J. Rueger | Hampton Div. of Fire & Rescue | "Who dares wins"
    Lt./Paramedic | Fire Communications Officer | Hampton, VA.
    B.S. Comm/I/SEL Pilot | MSgt, USAF (Ret.) 49199 | NREMT-P
    Check out my home page: http://members.cox.net/brueger
    Some of my photography: http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/34185.html
    "Life's too short to drink LITE beer!"
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SkyPilot, Sep 5, 2004
    #6
  7. greg

    Tom Scales Guest

    Tom Scales, Sep 5, 2004
    #7
  8. greg

    SkyPilot Guest

    "Tom Scales" <> pounded on the keyboard and wrote:

    >It will go to 1:1 like the 60/2.8?
    >
    >By the way, I love my 60/2.8
    >
    >Tom
    >> Greg,
    >>
    >> Don't over look the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D AF. It is also macro.
    >>
    >> http://www.usefilm.com/image/527101.html
    >> http://www.usefilm.com/image/502748.html
    >>
    >> I picked mine up on eBay for $199
    >>
    >> Brian

    >


    Maximum Reproduction Ratio (Macro Setting): 1:2.74


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Brian J. Rueger | Hampton Div. of Fire & Rescue | "Who dares wins"
    Lt./Paramedic | Fire Communications Officer | Hampton, VA.
    B.S. Comm/I/SEL Pilot | MSgt, USAF (Ret.) 49199 | NREMT-P
    Check out my home page: http://members.cox.net/brueger
    Some of my photography: http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/34185.html
    "Life's too short to drink LITE beer!"
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SkyPilot, Sep 5, 2004
    #8
  9. greg

    Alan Browne Guest

    greg wrote:

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


    See my reply in rpe35mm: short version: consider the Tamron 90mm
    f/2.8 (used) and look into the new Di version of the same lens.


    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    #9
  10. "greg" <> writes:

    > 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.
    >
    > Anyone?


    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.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 5, 2004
    #10
  11. greg

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.--
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    #11
  12. greg

    Tom Scales Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:UnJ_c.510$...
    > 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
    Tom Scales, Sep 5, 2004
    #12
  13. greg

    bob Guest

    "greg" <> 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
    bob, Sep 5, 2004
    #13
  14. greg

    Jim Guest

    "SkyPilot" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    Jim, Sep 6, 2004
    #14
  15. greg

    Apteryx Guest

    "greg" <> 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.
    Apteryx, Sep 6, 2004
    #15
  16. greg

    vhl Guest

    Apteryx <> 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
    vhl, Sep 6, 2004
    #16
  17. greg

    Gadgets Guest

    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
    Gadgets, Sep 6, 2004
    #17
  18. greg

    Apteryx Guest

    "vhl" <> wrote in message
    news:3hpghc.2i7.ln@192.168.11.2...
    > Apteryx <> 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.
    Apteryx, Sep 6, 2004
    #18
  19. greg

    greg Guest

    "greg" <> 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
    greg, Sep 8, 2004
    #19
    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. 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:
    462
    Gadgets
    Sep 27, 2004
  2. Cynicor

    Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro for Nikon

    Cynicor, Feb 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    Cynicor
    Feb 14, 2005
  3. Ken Tough

    Micro Nikkor AF 60mm vs 105mm (D70)

    Ken Tough, Mar 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,061
    Alan Browne
    Mar 29, 2005
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Macro with Canon 24mm f/2.8 and Nikon 105mm f/2.8

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, May 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    569
  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:
    794
Loading...

Share This Page