Nikkor 105 or 60mm macro?

Pindy

If I'm not usually photographing tiny creatures, is there much to not recommend the $550 60mm over the $930 105VR? Working distance isn't as much of a big deal for me and I'm not sure how useful the VR is in the macro range, right?

Both are AF-S and f/2.8. Any opinions? Both can achieve 1:1.

I rented the 105VR, and while very nice, it was VERY heavy and the barrel was thick, like a can of beans.

catspaw

IF into macros, 105. If not, the 60mm does great duty as portrait lens too.

Pindy

catspaw wrote:

IF into macros, 105. If not, the 60mm does great duty as portrait lens too.

Care to qualify that opinion?

catspaw

Pindy wrote:

Care to qualify that opinion?

no, I prefer to be vague and confusing.

Pindy

catspaw wrote:

no, I prefer to be vague and confusing.

Hey, fair enough!

catspaw

Dear Mr. Pindy,

I have the 60mm and for macro purposes, wish I had gotten the 105mm. I've played with one and the power and ability to stay further away from the subject is definitely useful. Tack an extension tube or two on the 60mm and your lens might actually touch the subject because the focus point can end up inside the lens itself. Messed up, huh?

On the other hand, I bought the 60mm right before Moab (had to drag the gang to Pictureline, buying something was obligatory! ) and had a blast with it there.

Of course, I had no clue what I was doing then. Only a bit more now. Still, I think my points are valid.

jwear

you did the right thing renting or shoot with a friend that has one .the 4 nikon has 60 105 vr and without plus the 200 are all great .You have to feel good with the camera and lens in your hand and that is the one you want.

Pindy

I realize that the 60mm's working distance might be so close to the subject at 1:1 you could make a terrible shadow. Probably reason enough to buy the 105VR if you're not working on a copy stand, eh? I certainly can't complain about the 105VR in terms of build quality, though I thought the purple fringes were not only present too often but they were impossible to get rid of in LR—not sure why. Mostly, it was along specular highlights, so in the real world this may not show up nearly as much. It'll teach me not to photograph chrome.

hiroProtagonist

Pindy wrote:

I realize that the 60mm's working distance might be so close to the subject at 1:1 you could make a terrible shadow. Probably reason enough to buy the 105VR if you're not working on a copy stand, eh? I certainly can't complain about the 105VR in terms of build quality, though I thought the purple fringes were not only present too often but they were impossible to get rid of in LR—not sure why. Mostly, it was along specular highlights, so in the real world this may not show up nearly as much. It'll teach me not to photograph chrome.

VR serves is basically useless for macro, but comes in handy if you shoot the lens as a normal 105. If your shooting FX then the 105 is not a bad choice as a portriat lens. In addition to working distance you need to consider dof.

bbrat

Hi everyone!

new to this forum, but not forums in general.

Have a quick question to those that have used either lens. I am a portrait photographer mainly do from maternity through family. I am a location and studio shooter and was wondering of these 2 macro lenses which would be better to capture newborn body parts up close (ie fingers, toes, mouth, etc..). I would mainly use this lens for that and also some portrait use as well. on my spare time would also get into macro shooting.

My lens line up right now is Nikon 24-70, 70-200, 35/2, 50/1.4G, 85/1.8. I use a D700 and D300. Would I just be better off saving the money and use what I have?

ziggy53

bbrat wrote:

Hi everyone!

new to this forum, but not forums in general.

Have a quick question to those that have used either lens. I am a portrait photographer mainly do from maternity through family. I am a location and studio shooter and was wondering of these 2 macro lenses which would be better to capture newborn body parts up close (ie fingers, toes, mouth, etc..). I would mainly use this lens for that and also some portrait use as well. on my spare time would also get into macro shooting.

My lens line up right now is Nikon 24-70, 70-200, 35/2, 50/1.4G, 85/1.8. I use a D700 and D300. Would I just be better off saving the money and use what I have?

Brian, welcome to the Digital Grin.

For human features I would want a longer focal length. The longer focal length also makes positioning the light easier.

Almost any true "macro" lens is very high quality now days so I would also suggest looking at the third party lenses as well.

Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX macro DG
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/30...report--review

Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/27...w--test-report

Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/28...report--review

bbrat

ziggy53 wrote:

Brian, welcome to the Digital Grin.

For human features I would want a longer focal length. The longer focal length also makes positioning the light easier.

Almost any true "macro" lens is very high quality now days so I would also suggest looking at the third party lenses as well.

Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX macro DG
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/30...report--review

Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/27...w--test-report

Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/28...report--review

ziggy53,

thanks so much, will check them out.

Pindy

Starting to resign myself to the 105VR or maybe the Tamron 90mm, but I would much prefer an entirely internal focusing lens and am willing to pay for it.

Art Scott

Pindy wrote:

but I would much prefer an entirely internal focusing lens and am willing to pay for it.

Take a look into Sigma.....most of their good to best lenses are IF not always designated with the IF in the description header but in the long description it will say internal focusing......
I would tend to lean to the 150-180 macro's to get a beter working distance from subject,,,,,especially for doing any creative lighting with strobes or relectors.....I have use reversed lenses and diopter filters and hated being nose to nose with the subject (whaether flower or bug or snake).............

Cygnus Studios

I have the Nikkor 60mm macro, 105mm macro and the Tamron 90mm macro.
The Tamron is my 1st choice each and every time. Incredibly sharp and great DOF.

Pindy

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I have the Nikkor 60mm macro, 105mm macro and the Tamron 90mm macro.
The Tamron is my 1st choice each and every time. Incredibly sharp and great DOF.

Are the Nikkors the AF-D or manual models? or the AF-S?

Pindy

Art Scott wrote:

Take a look into Sigma.....most of their good to best lenses are IF not always designated with the IF in the description header but in the long description it will say internal focusing......
I would tend to lean to the 150-180 macro's to get a beter working distance from subject,,,,,especially for doing any creative lighting with strobes or relectors.....I have use reversed lenses and diopter filters and hated being nose to nose with the subject (whaether flower or bug or snake).............

Will do. Though not being a massive macro man, I don't think I would commit to those focal lengths. Perhaps if it became a real thing for me.

Cygnus Studios

Pindy wrote:

Are the Nikkors the AF-D or manual models? or the AF-S?

Both are AF-S

Pindy

Bought a second-hand 105 today. Thanks all.

Pindy

Very pleased with 105mm as a focal length. That was the right choice. I shrugged off the comments about it doubling as a good portrait lens but I completely get it now. My next lens was to be the 135 or the Cream Machine and this thing is so sharp and with addition of VR and an excellent AF-S, I really feel like I got good value. The only thing that's missing is f/1.4 or f/2. I cannot expect Nikon (or Canon) to make their next generation of medium telephoto potrait lenses with VR but can you imagine an 85mm f/1.2L III IS USM or AF-S 135 f/2G VR ED? A guy can dream.