Nikon Macro Lens 60mm or 85mm??

V

villafan82

Suspended / Banned
Messages
35
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

Thanks for those for the advice on my first thread when I purchased my first DSLR. I have added the 35mm prime and a Sigma wide boy 10-20mm.

I am now intrigued by the close ups/macro side of photography.

I am interested to know which Nikon Macro lens is best, the 60mm or 85mm version?

Please advise

Regards

Steve
 
I have the 60mm 2.8D and it is a superbly sharp and a fantastic portrait lens also; have not used the 85mm though.....good luck
 
I also had the 60mm 2.8D, it is a cracker. One of the sharpest lenses I've owned, easily. Great focal length for portraits too, I agree.

I've read some reviews on the 85mm, and they were average at best. I'd go with the 60mm 2.8G, or if you can find the D version used for a good price. You don't say what dslr you use? If it's anything below a D90 I'd go for the G version definitely.
 
Last edited:
Not used either. But usually with macro, you don't want the front element too close to your subject because, you can cut out any natural light. So, go for the longer of the two.
 
Hi Thank you for you replies thus far.

I would be mainly using for close ups of flowers etc.

I have the Nikon D5100 if this helps with my choice?

Regards

Steve
 
you haven't mentioned your budget..
I have the AF 60mm - & love it, only cost me £170 in mint condition.

It is most likely the cheapest lens you can get but i don't think it will work with your camera as it doesn't have an internal motor - there is a AF-s version however....
 
my budget is around the £200-£250 ish mark

I doubt I will upgrade to a full frame SLR for some years yet.
 
I think your budget is a little light for a AF-S 60mm F2.8, but its possible...

Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Lenses - not a clue about this len's though - although you may just get it for £250..
 
I will probably keep an eye on the 2nd hand market to achieve my budget
 
Does it have to be a Nikon?

My 50mm f/2.8 Sigma 1:1 macro was an absolute bargain. The pre-owned Nikon branded stuff seems to sell at over the odds prices.
 
Tried both the 85g and 60g today both really cool but the 60 feels better made slightly sharper, has faster auto focus but doesn't have vr. Its all down to what you want to shoot with it? If its bugs and things that will get scared then you need a 105 for the extra distance between the bug and the lens, but for anything else i would get the 60mm without a doubt.
 
For macro a longer lens is definitely better. The shortest I would consider is 90mm-100mm. In my brief stint at macro I used a tamron 90mm and it was ridiculously sharp..
 
if you are considered 60mm, how about the 40mm micro dx afs lens? very sharp and quite similar to the 60 mm work distance wise
 
Personally look for longer (more working distance).

I have the 105mm micro nikkor lens (f2.8d I think) and it was around 400ukp used. Might be a bit less. It won't AF, but if its being used for macro, that shouldn't be a problem.

Tamron 90mm, sigma 105mm and sigma 150mm options might be worth trying. Not sure of prices, but if you can find a used place where you can go and try them first... :) definitely do it.

Also look at extension tubes too :)
 
villafan82 said:
I will probably keep an eye the 2nd hand to achieve my budget
Click to expand...

I have a mint boxed AF 60mm f2.8 D Lens if you are interested as I am looking at funding for possibly 17-55 f2.8 at the moment.....let me know.:)
 
Longer is definitely better for macro. But between these 2 I'd still choose the 60mm. It's got the better optics. It's also FX compatible for future upgrades.

I have had the Nikon 60mm and 105 and now use a 150mm sigma. Sigma do very decent macro lenses, as do tamron, the 90mm mentioned is very popular.
 
The sigma 10-20mm wide lens I have is a peach. So I would probably contemplate a Sigma. Which exact model is ideal?
 
My brother uses the 60mm nikkor, gets cracking results with it but I'd personally go for longer
 
villafan82 said:
The sigma 10-20mm wide lens I have is a peach. So I would probably contemplate a Sigma. Which exact model is ideal?
Click to expand...

I have the 150mm 2.8 OS, not a cheap lens. But I know you can get either the older 150mm without OS, or the 180mm also without OS for reasonable prices, better still if you can find them on the used market.
 
The close you have to get for proper 1:1 I would go even longer if I was to dabble in macro again. That sigma 150 looks the business.
 
Hi peeps.

Thanks again.

But which is the better to have interms of being a beginner and the budget I have fora 2nd hand lens?
 
Hi, If you can put up with Manual Focussing and Aperture Priority or Manual then an absolute cracker of a lens to use is the 55mm F2.8 Micro Nikkor, they can be picked up for very reasonable price on Ebay.
I've had one from new and use it on a D800 Full frame and get life size images when using a 27mm extension tube. It focuses to half life size without the tube.
If using it on a DX format camera then the focal length would be 82.5mm which is just about right for portraits.
You'll not get a better built or sharper lens anywhere.
 
okie dokies

I have been takina look at the siggy's

There is the new 105mm Macro with HSM, 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and there is another model without HSM, Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro .

The price seems to be quite different too. Is this just down to a newer model or is it a better lens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top