Which Micro Lens is Best

[banyantree]

I am about to invest in a Micro Lens for my D300. I have used my friends AF Micro 105mm f/2.8D and find it excellent.
I was considering the AF- S MIcro VR 105mm f/2.8G but have just read a review of the Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro.

The latter is about S$400-500 cheaper but what are the main diff in quality of close up photography for these lenses?

Appreciate any help.

I currently have the AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX and the 50mm f/1.8D which i am delighted with.

 

[tanjonhan]

your working distance between the 105mm and 60mm is different...105 would give u a more comfortable working space to work on compared to the 60mm...if u only do still life, not an issue, but if u do like insects, using the 60mm to get 1:1 will require u to go really close, like 15cm away...which will most of the time disturb the insects..so yeah.. that's a pt to consider...

not to forget 105mm comes with VR too...which adds to the cost.

 

[zac08]

Well, MOST important question.

Wat is your subject??

 

[banyantree]

insects and flowers.
I was also informed that the 105mm is excellent for portraits.

 

[luna_sea83]

Even the afs 60 micro is great for portraits, shooting insects and flowers? 105 VR micro then.

 

[zac08]

insects and flowers.
I was also informed that the 105mm is excellent for portraits.

If insects and flowers, then consider the 105.

The 60 is too short....

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Is it true that 60 is too short for flowers?

I would have thought that 60 is good for flowers and 105 is better for insects. Of course it depends on what flower and how high a magnification you want to get. If you want the whole flower you may have to work too far using the 105, IMHO.

The better lens for insects is really the 200 micro.

Check out Leong23's work in the macro section.

For all round work I like both the AFS60 and AFS105, beautiful bokeh. For portraits I found on DX cameras the 105 to be too long, prefer 60.

Many suggest getting the AFS60, easier to handle, then go for the 105 or 200 depending on your needs.

 

[hacknet]

i was just bout to say, the 105 comes up short for insects. you might want to look for something longer..

 

[Zichar]

I use the 60mm to take photos of food on the table, especially my own meal The 105mm can sometimes force me to stand up or rearrange plates, not always in good taste when there's company (and hungry too)

 

[GuessBoy]

Buy either the 105 or the 200mm Micro lens lol

 

[erictan8888]

105mm is good... very sharp and has beautiful bokeh for portraits....

 

[scenar]

105 could be a little shot for butterflies. do consider the tamron 180 macro if u want something longer and 1/2 the price of the micro-nikkor 200/4. of course for other bugs, 105 is sufficient!

 

[vince123123]

Anyone knows about the 70-180 micro lens?

 

[.Hack]

Has heard great rave and reviews on the Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro.
Intending to get a Micro lens too.
Shortlisted the Nikon 60mm/105mm or the Tamron 90mm.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Anyone knows about the 70-180 micro lens?

No longer available new. I've never handled one, but heard great review of this lens. Does not go to 1:1 but very versatile.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Has heard great rave and reviews on the Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro.
Intending to get a Micro lens too.
Shortlisted the Nikon 60mm/105mm or the Tamron 90mm.

Apart from the brand and perhaps some difference in IQ, the biggest practical difference is that the Nikon Micro's are IF designs, i.e. the lenses don't change length focusing from infinity to 1:1. The Tamron extends out significantly in macro region. Do check that out, and may be a relevant consideration if shooting bugs.

 

[.Hack]

Apart from the brand and perhaps some difference in IQ, the biggest practical difference is that the Nikon Micro's are IF designs, i.e. the lenses don't change length focusing from infinity to 1:1. The Tamron extends out significantly in macro region. Do check that out, and may be a relevant consideration if shooting bugs.

Thanx for the info bro. Will take note of that.
Still doing lots of research between the lenses before commiting.
The price diff is another factor for me.
Apparently the Nikon cost alot more than the Tamron. :dunno:

 

[brian]

Anyone knows about the 70-180 micro lens?

Yup. One of my favourite lens. Not for everyone though. The aperture starts at f4.5 at the short end and goes up to 5.6 at 180mm, requiring tripod for most use. Of course in digital you can just fire many shot and pick the best one if a tripod is not available. For macro shooting, f5.6 is more than enough. It goes up to 1:2 magnification only, but the interesting thing is, unlike macro primes, where you have to move forward and backwards to frame the subject (and refocus), with the 70-180 you just zoom... and the focus stays on the spot. Its sharp enough for me to sell my 80-200.

Downside for me is: I'm sure you have heard about the weak tripod mount. Good techniques are required to use this lens, and if all corners are covered its a really good lens. For portability I'll bring a 105mm f4 AI instead... cheap and can be destroyed anytime, and as sharp as the new VR version.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

It goes up to 1:2 magnification only, but the interesting thing is, unlike macro primes, where you have to move forward and backwards to frame the subject (and refocus), with the 70-180 you just zoom... and the focus stays on the spot.

That has to do with physics of optics - to get to 1:1 you need to extend the lens out by an amount equal to the focal length of the lens. With 50mm you need to extend 50mm physically. With 180mm, you work out the math.

That's why a lot of macro lenses would become almost twice as long when they go to 1:1. :thumbsd:

Most prime macro lenses go to 1:1 by shortening the focal length, among other trips employed (I do not know enough of optics to know the rest of the tricks :lovegrin. So the reframing is a necessity of a small package and lens that remain comfortably short. Something that I have to learn to live with.

The 70-180mm did away with this problem by going only to 1:2. A compromise in the other direction.

AFAIK the macro primes do not need reframing if you stay within 1:2, but I may be wrong. My point is, if you know why the 70-180 needs no reframing, and work within the same limits on macro primes, you too should not have to reframe. I better check this out... :sweat:

Having said that I want to buy the 70-180... how to find one?

Maybe the next trip to Japan?

 

[brian]

My physics is a lot simpler. If you shoot a flower, say, and instead of it filling 1/3 the frame you want it to fill the whole frame... with a prime you have to move closer and refocus. Not a big issue with AF, but most macro shooters I know prefer MF. Anyways... the reason you have to move closer is simple.. its a prime. The 70-180mm is the only pure macro zoom on the market and say you start at 70mm... all you do is you keep the tripod where it is, and you zoom to 120mm and you're there.

There are some in the used market in Japan, but they're quite rare. Depends on your luck. They do appear once in a while but disappear in less than a week. (you can tell I browse their catalog all the time!)

Anyway, back to Banyantree's problem... What I do now, to keep my gear light is to use micro as a normal prime (infinity focus) as well. You already have a 50mm and since you plan to shoot insects too... I would look into the 105mm length if I were you. Of course lets not bring the 200mm into the picture. That's a beauty...