Questions on Macro Lenses for Nikon

[greenmac]

Hey all, just after some advice on a Macro Lens.
I wanted to go and have a look at the lenses, but as the demand isn't big enough in Adelaide I have to order the lens in.
There are four options which I have found

Nikkor AF 60mm f 2.8D Micro - AU$735
Nikkor AF-S VR 105mm f 2.8G IF-ED Micro - AU $1149
Tamron 90mm f 2.8Di Macro - AU$630
Sigma Macro 105mm f 2.8 EX DG - $729

I appreciate any advice I get. Thanks

 

[01jamcon]

I don't have too mich experience with the bottom 3 lenses, but I have had fairly extensive use with a 55m f/2.8 micro Nikkor which was the predecessor to the 60mm if I read correctly.

The image produced by the lens has been consistently great with my dad's F4. And I have only heard of very similar reviews for the 60mm. In fact, because it has a 55mm focal length, it has replaced the need entirely for a prime lens, 50mm f/1.8 or something similar, plus it has the added benefits of being great at macro shots, even without that slightly larger aperture, which I never truly used.

Anyways, as it seems the other 3 choices seem to have longer focal lengths, I'm not sure if that's probably what you require more. I'd have a search on internet reviews for each of them, but if it's a toss up b/w the Nikkor 105mm or Sigma 105mm, based purely on my experience with the 55mm, I'd recommend to go with Nikkor if it's affordable.

 

[patrick0brien]

Hey all, just after some advice on a Macro Lens.
I wanted to go and have a look at the lenses, but as the demand isn't big enough in Adelaide I have to order the lens in.
There are four options which I have found

Nikkor AF 60mm f 2.8D Micro - AU$735
Nikkor AF-S VR 105mm f 2.8G IF-ED Micro - AU $1149
Tamron 90mm f 2.8Di Macro - AU$630
Sigma Macro 105mm f 2.8 EX DG - $729

I appreciate any advice I get. Thanks

-greenmac

I've looked at both Nikkors, the 60mm and the 105mm.

Both produce excellent - and pretty much identical pictures, the difference lies in that the 60 you have to get right up on the subject for a good closeup - like 1-2 inches, whereas the 105 can do it from a distance of about 3 feet.

I bought the 60mm because I don't plan on taking pictures of bees any time soon

 

[ChrisA]

Hey all, just after some advice on a Macro Lens.
I wanted to go and have a look at the lenses, but as the demand isn't big enough in Adelaide I have to order the lens in.
There are four options which I have found

Nikkor AF 60mm f 2.8D Micro - AU$735
Nikkor AF-S VR 105mm f 2.8G IF-ED Micro - AU $1149
Tamron 90mm f 2.8Di Macro - AU$630
Sigma Macro 105mm f 2.8 EX DG - $729

I appreciate any advice I get. Thanks

The 105 length lets you have more room between the lens and the subject. Maybe allowing for some kind of light or defusers or refectors. or just keeping the shadow of the camera off the subject

VR is only usfull if the camera is hand held. I suspect that most macro shots are done with a very sturdy tripod and the shutter is released with the IR remote control. So is camera shke much of an issue? But if you have reason to take hand held macros then VR would help a lot.

All of the Nikon macrs going back several decades have been best in class. I have a 1970's vintage 55mm macro lens. At one time this was the sharpest lens made. All my macro work is done on a tripod with strobe lighting so I don't need auto focus or automatic light metering. So the manual focus macro lens works well.

 

[ChrisA]

-greenmac

I've looked at both Nikkors, the 60mm and the 105mm.

Both produce excellent - and pretty much identical pictures, the difference lies in that the 60 you have to get right up on the subject for a good closeup - like 1-2 inches, whereas the 105 can do it from a distance of about 3 feet.

I bought the 60mm because I don't plan on taking pictures of bees any time soon

Close but not exact. The different in subject to camera distance is proportional to the focal length. so with the 105mm lens you can be 105/60 or 1.75X So if you were one foot away witht the 60mm you could do the same shoot from 1 foot 8 inches with the 105.

It's not the 18 to 1 ratio that 1-2 inches vs. 3 feet implies. It's 1.75 or "just under double"

Bees (and butterflys) are a good example. Geting to close can frighten them away.

If it were me, I'd just get an older Manual focus macro lens. Costs under $100.

 

[patrick0brien]

Close but not exact. The different in subject to camera distance is proportional to the focal length.

-ChrisA

Oy vey! I wasn't trying to go there - just trying to shed some real world light to his question.

 

[greenmac]

Thanks

Thanks guys, I had in my mind that I wanted the Nikkor 60mm.
As "01jamcon" said, It replaces the need for a 50mm prime.
I think I'll go order the 60mm today.

 

[Karpfish]

The 60 is a good choice, so is the 105