Nikon Macro lens

R

roofowler

Suspended / Banned
Messages
106
Name
Rupert
Edit My Images
No
I have an 80-200 to get rid of and want to replace it with a macro lens, I'd like to stick to Nikon so my choices seem to be the 105 VR, the 60 AF-S and the 60 AF-D. Does anyone have any real world input or experience with the 60 mils in particular? I had a quick go with the 105 and it was great but I can't ignore the 60 for nearly half the price, the extra depth of field of the 105 would be handy but not essential and the VR doesn't matter so much as the 60 is a shorter lens. Differences in sharpness are irrelevant for what I'm using it for.
 
Just to throw a spanner in, how about the 85mm AF-S VR2? That and the 3 you've suggested are what I'm considering at the moment.
 
The main difference will be working distance with the 60mm giving 1:1 at end of lens to subject of 48mm and the 105mm VR giving 1:1 at 154mm
 
robrevens said:
Just to throw a spanner in, how about the 85mm AF-S VR2? That and the 3 you've suggested are what I'm considering at the moment.
Click to expand...

I've just looked that up but seen it's a DX lens otherwise it would be a good compromise.

I've had sigmas in the past and they can get some amazing pictures but they just seem to be a bit more of a lottery to me, I've never had an issue with Nikon lenses but both sigmas have had their problems. I think the 60 AF-D will be the one, I might as well go for the cheapest of the three options as I just need it for one particular aspect of my work. I'm currently either using a 50 and cropping lots or using the 70-200 and stuggling with the shutter speed in bad light!
 
Are you sticking to new lenses?

You can get the 'old' 105mm if you look carefully and why does it have to be AF?

Why not consider the 55mm or the 105mm manual versions, or even the 200mm?

Ultimate would be the 200mm AF - but you're talking a grand - if you can find one.

Or the Holy Grail - the 70-180 - equally rare.
 
I do prefer new as I will probably be using it for some time and it's nice to start fresh. To be honest macro isn't my thing, I just need fairly close up shots probably once a week, I would like AF for speed, I just want to point and shoot and I really don't like manual focus with DSLR focussing screens.
 
roofowler said:
I do prefer new as I will probably be using it for some time and it's nice to start fresh. To be honest macro isn't my thing, I just need fairly close up shots probably once a week, I would like AF for speed, I just want to point and shoot and I really don't like manual focus with DSLR focussing screens.
Click to expand...

I would have agreeded with that, but since I bought a 105 VR, I dont think I've had used it on autofocus more than a couple of times.
 
I love my Sigma 150m f2.8, so if it's not too long, I'll suggest that.
 
roofowler said:
I do prefer new as I will probably be using it for some time and it's nice to start fresh. To be honest macro isn't my thing, I just need fairly close up shots probably once a week, I would like AF for speed, I just want to point and shoot and I really don't like manual focus with DSLR focussing screens.
Click to expand...

If thats the case just get a set of Kenko extension tubes and use them with your 50mm, you'll retain auto focus and auto aperture and as theres no glass in them, IQ will not be affected and you'll get better than 1:1.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
If thats the case just get a set of Kenko extension tubes and use them with your 50mm, you'll retain auto focus and auto aperture and as theres no glass in them, IQ will not be affected and you'll get better than 1:1.
Click to expand...

I had not considered these, can you still focus at objects relatively far away or are you limited to quite a close focus range at all? I can't find any information regarding this so I assume you can still focus on objects say 5m away.
 
The Tamron Adaptall-2 ƒ/2.5 90mm is £100 or so with the mount. Unlike the Nikkor 60mm, the aperture doesn't close down for near focus distances.

For the same magnification, DOF will be the same for equal apertures, regardless of focal length: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1539237&postcount=27

Here's a general sort of shot with the 60mm AF-D:

plums-600x400.jpg
 
roofowler said:
I had not considered these, can you still focus at objects relatively far away or are you limited to quite a close focus range at all? I can't find any information regarding this so I assume you can still focus on objects say 5m away.
Click to expand...

You wont be able to focus to infinity and the actual min - max focus points is controlled by which tubes are used and the focal length of the lens they are fitted to, which will also determine the magnification you will get.
 
I've sorted this out now. I was so close to going for the 60mm AF-S but then I realised how close the 24-70 AF-S focusses (close enough for what I need it for). A macro lens and the 24-70 were both on my possible list of purchases, as soon as I realised the 24-70 would do the job of the macro just fine, I decided on that, so I popped into town earlier and bought one. I had nothing between 24mm and 70mm previously apart from a 50 so it was the perfect answer.
 
roofowler said:
I've sorted this out now. I was so close to going for the 60mm AF-S but then I realised how close the 24-70 AF-S focusses (close enough for what I need it for). A macro lens and the 24-70 were both on my possible list of purchases, as soon as I realised the 24-70 would do the job of the macro just fine, I decided on that, so I popped into town earlier and bought one. I had nothing between 24mm and 70mm previously apart from a 50 so it was the perfect answer.
Click to expand...

Not really macro with a magnification of 1:3.7 - a object that would fill the frame with a macro lens (1:1) will only fill approx 1/4 of the frame with this lens.
 
The OP said he just needed the lens for fairly close work. The 60mm Micro may be chosen as a dual purpose lens (DX portraits), but I came across this comment: Compared to the predecessor, the new 60 Micro convinces by offering much better performance at the wider apertures and at distance, both areas in which the older lens didn't do too well. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

I don't know if "at distance" means infinity or includes normal portrait range. Portrait lenses have been designed with optimum performance at portrait range and less good at infinity.

Just wondering if anyone here has compared the new 60mm with the older version(s)? Ken Rockwell says the vignetting at ƒ/2.8 is "much worse" with the newer lens, and working distance is reduced. AF is less consistent with some cameras and distortion is worse. I'm assuming that control of CA, flare and ghosting are improved, plus the bokeh.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Not really macro with a magnification of 1:3.7 - a object that would fill the frame with a macro lens (1:1) will only fill approx 1/4 of the frame with this lens.
Click to expand...

No it's not a macro but I've currently been using my 70-200 which is 1:5.6 and I'm often struggling to get a shutter speed fast enough to compensate for the camera shake at 200mm, therefore 70mm and 1:3.7 is so much better and will be close enough for 99% of what I need.
 
Autofocusing on a macro is more hassle than its worth, its slow, and if you miss your point it hunts all the way through the range (and a large focusing range it is with macro lenses). also the Dof is soooooo shallow at 1:1 or even 1:2 that even breathing will put you out of focus again. so you should definately be looking to manual focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top