60, 85 or 105 Nikkor Macro

[MiniChris]

the 105 is a bit out of my price range but I can justify it if it is A: significantly a better lens than the other two, or if, as has been suggested by some other sites, B: the 60 and 85 can't get close enough without my own shadow getting in the way.

Anyone out there in Nikon land have either of the three and can you make some suggestions?

[ilovelucydog]

the 105 is a bit out of my price range but I can justify it if it is A: significantly a better lens than the other two, or if, as has been suggested by some other sites, B the 60 and 85 can't get close enough without my own shadow getting in the way.

Anyone out there in Nikon land have either of the three and can you make some suggestions?

Nope.

[Sahil]

Dave (Mod) does.

[Dave Humphries]

Dave (Mod) does.

Indeed he does (have the 105mm f/2.8)

But I don't have either of the others to compare quality Chris.

The sensor size (1.5 crop or full frame) should also influence the decision.

I'll assume crop from now on ...

Which you may need depends what you want to shoot, if insects, the 105mm would be the absolute minimum focal length to consider, but if say, flowers, or still life, or small objects for say, e-Bay, etc., then the 60 or 85mm may be better. I found a 55mm good for the latter.

I shoot bugs using the 105mm and have to remove the lens hood to minimise the shadow cast by the end of the lens barrel. I can't say how much of a problem (with reduced lens to subject distance) it might be with the 60 or 85mm.

Of course the 60 or 85mm might make a better portrait lens, if you had leanings that way and no other lens.

Cheers,

[tbob]

I can not compare the 105 to the other two, but I have the 105 mm f2.8. I used it quite a bit over the last three years, lately I have gone to shooting old abandoned farm buildings so it has seen less use. It is a great lens and sharp at all apertures form 2.8 to 32 (I am not a techie so I can't give you the blow by blow analysis for performance , it pleases me and I check my images at 100% for sharpness so it guess it is pretty good.). It is light enough to handhold at times down to 1/20 sec so it actually is quite good for insects, just have to get closer than a 200mm but then the 200mm is near to impossible to hand hold at any speed. The depth of field is very shallow even at f32 and extremely shallow at 2.8 (to the point of ridiculousness really; I usually shoot at f8 to f22). Due to the depth of field I prefer the 105 over the 200mm for shooting detail of weathered paint, metal and wood on old buildings as the 3D nature of these surfaces allows the 105 to give more detail overall.

As a medium telephoto it is completely useless, strictly a macro lens. The depth of field is such that fore and background are out of focus so I get this weird to my eyes effect of the subject in focus and the rest progressively more blurred. Nice bokeh though!

I got mine used for $450 on eBay, has a few minor dings and wear; but so do I and I still have close to my full usefulness although opinions vary. They are fairly frequently listed for sale.

I would recommend it

[rpcrowe]

I cannot speak for any of the mentioned lenses, however I shoot with a 90mm f/2.8 Tamron Macro lens and like that focal length quite a bit on my 1.6x Canon cameras.

The 90mm Tamron or 100mm Canon (series) macro lenses are a nice compromise between cost, weight and lens to image distance. Of course, the new 100mm f/2.8L IS macro is way out of the equation price-wise.

I would not want a macro lens any shorter than 90mm (I guess that 85mm would be O.K.) on a crop camera and I would want a lens at least as long as 100-105mm (preferably longer) on a full frame camera.

There are two reasons for this:

The little creepy-crawlies which we often shoot can be frightened by the close proximity of lens and photographer.

It is sometimes difficult to light a macro subject when the camera/lens is quite close and additionally, your shadow might interfere with the shot.

I have owned a 50mm Canon Macro lens which I used on a 35mm film camera. I did not like this lens at all because it could only achieve 1:2 image ratio without an adapter and mostly because it required me to be too close to my subject.

I shot with a 90mm Vivitar Series One macro lens on a 35mm Pentax film camera and that was actually too short a focal length for my needs on a full frame camera.

Regarding the image quality of macro lenses, IMO, they are all very good to excellent. Here is a review of the 90mm Tamron f/2.8 SP Di Macro lens on the Nikonians website.
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...cro/index.html

[Black Pearl]

All three are biting sharp and you'd have to be a dedicated pixel peeper and certified window licker to find optical faults with any of the three.

I have the older version of the 60mm and even that (an ancient design) will out resolve my D300s sensor with ease. I've used the 105mm quite a bit and find the extra length good for subjects that move as the stand off distance is that little bit greater, not dramatic mind. It is a big lens mind and the extra size and weight may become an issue as your kit expands, the 60mm is a dinky little thing so more likely to be left in your bag for when its needed. The 85mm is an interesting one. I've hummed and harred many times over the last year as to whether I would 'upgrade' to this from mine or, as you are debating, go the whole hog and stump up for the 105mm. Advantages over the 60mm are greater stand off at 1:1 and the VR unit (though this isn't very effective at 1:1 nor is the one in the 105mm) for day to day shooting. It's half a stop slower on paper but by the time you've cranked the 60mm out to match the magnification it will be at the same f stop.
Is any of this helping? Not sure even I know that. If you're on a budget get the 60mm its a little cracker - if you want to push the boat out then the 105mm is a bit more versatile.

As an interesting side note did you know that as you focus closer the focal length of your lenses increase and so the effective f stop increases (the f number goes up and the amount of light getting in goes down). Not an issue with 'normal' lenses but a very noticeable one with a macro lens with its very long throw focus. Now to the interesting bit - Nikon camera bodies display the effective aperture so as you focus closer you will notice the f stop changes. Canon bodies don't do this and will continue to display the set f stop even though it may well be inaccurate. If you are using the cameras meter then this isn't an issue as the camera will compensate but if you use a hand-held meter and set the exposure manually then the results will vary on the Canon system as you won't know what the effective aperture is.

Try it.
Put the camera body on aperture priority - pick an aperture - point the camera at an evenly lit surface and start to turn the focusing ring. You will notice the shutter speeds lengthen as the effective aperture drops. On a Nikon body the displayed aperture will also change but on the Canon bodies it won't. This isn't an anti-Canon thing as I've said it won't affect anyone using in-camera meters but it is an odd quirk.

[The Blue Boy]

Interesting thread this, as I'm looking at getting into this macro malarkey too. The lens I'm leaning towards, however, is the Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Lens. Just reading the various reviews and looking at the images taken with it (using the title of the lens as a search tag on flickr) it looks to be the one for me.

Sorry to muddy the waters, but Sigma as a brand are definite competition to the big hitters.

[Geoff F]

Sigma lenses in general aren't better than the 'real thing' but the best of them, like their macro range, are almost as good and probably will produce equivalent results, but for a lower cost.

However, if money doesn't matter and you want the very best . . .

I would certainly agree with the 150 mm minimum for anybody who wants to get serious about small insects. I use the Sigma 180 mm and often add a 1.4x converter. However, other subjects can be achieved equally well, sometimes better, with a smaller lens.

Mark, have you read any of the recent threads about shooting macro and using flash with macro lenses?

[The Blue Boy]

"Mark, have you read any of the recent threads about shooting macro and using flash with macro lenses?"

No, I haven't mate. I'm busy with other groups on flickr and just other stuff.

I do come here to read but I'm obviously missing stuff as the site gets more popular.

I'm looking to expand my knowledge of photography by getting into the small stuff! I shoot for alot of stock and macro seems to be quiete popular vocation.