 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006Macro/Micro for Nikon
Currently I have an older 55mm AI Micro lens, and I'd like to upgrade to a lens with AF and one that will couple to my D70's meter. The only lens I've had a chance to play with is the 105, but I'm kinda leaning towards the 60mm 2.8 now. I'm thinking that the new lens will allow me to focus better, with the wider aperture, and since it racks out to 1:1 with no extension tubes it will also be easier to use than getting extension tubes for my 80~200 2.8 lens and working in that limited range. The 105 is a nice lens, but it would just be another big, heavy lens, and with macro that can be a pain. Any thoughts? I've taken some great photos with the old 55, but having to do everything manually is a bit of a pain. Thanks. Sheldon The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you don't have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that is an advantage. OTOH you do get more depth of field with the 60. Either will give you better macro quality than your 80-200 with tubes. Toby > Currently I have an older 55mm AI Micro lens, and I'd like to upgrade to a > lens with AF and one that will couple to my D70's meter. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Sheldon > The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you don't > have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that is an > advantage. OTOH you do get more depth of field with the 60. Either will give On this note is anyone using the 60 a lot. I have an AF 105 f 2.8 which I absolutely love, maybe even as much, despite the digital crop factor, as my old AI 105 with film bodies, but I miss my film AI 85mm and have been thinking of using the AF60 as a replacement on digital bodies. Any comments? > On this note is anyone using the 60 a lot. I have an AF 105 f 2.8 > which I absolutely love, maybe even as much, despite the digital crop > factor, as my old AI 105 with film bodies, but I miss my film AI 85mm > and have been thinking of using the AF60 as a replacement on digital > bodies. Any comments? I'm finding the f/1.8 50 mm lens a wonderful short telephoto for portraits. It's equivalent to 75mm on film, so if you'd miss the 10 mm, the AF 60mm probably would do more tricks, but the f/1.8 is considerably cheaper and faster unless you need the macro function for the $200 difference. My 105 f/2.8 VR macro does tricks that I don't have in other lenses, both as a 1:1 macro and has a VR telephoto lens.  SignatureRebecca Ore > The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you don't > have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that is an > advantage. OTOH you do get more depth of field with the 60. Either will > give you better macro quality than your 80-200 with tubes. > > Toby You make a good point. Often, when shooting bugs, I can really use the extra DOF, so the 60 might be a better choice than the 105. Cheaper, too, and on the D70 works out to a 90mm. >The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you don't >have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that is an >advantage. OTOH you do get more depth of field with the 60. Either will give >you better macro quality than your 80-200 with tubes. I had a chance to take my new 105 VR macro lens out for a foraging walk. I took pictures of plants along the way. I found that the 105, which with the crop factor becomes a 157.5 mm lens, forced me to be too far away to be useful. Plus the depth of field was too short. I have no doubt that a 60, even without the VR, would be more useful for me. As soon as I can find the manual this one will go on eBay. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). >>The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you don't >>have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that is an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). Prices for both lenses on eBay tend to be just shy of new. >>The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you don't >>have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that is an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > crop factor becomes a 157.5 mm lens, forced me to be too far away to be > useful. Plus the depth of field was too short. Can someone confirm this DOF issue? At high magnifications I believe it does not matter, the only difference is angle of view including more or less context. For moderate closeups, DOF is probably a real issue but not at 1:1 (I think). I believe DOF does not vary at equal magnification, regardless of distance in fact. What changes is the magnification of background elements relative to the subject so perhaps there is a residual effect on DOF there but not enough to effect the immediate slice of sharpness available in very closeup macro work. > I have no doubt that a 60, > even without the VR, would be more useful for me. > > As soon as I can find the manual this one will go on eBay. > > Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > Can someone confirm this DOF issue? At high magnifications I believe > it does not matter, the only difference is angle of view including [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> As soon as I can find the manual this one will go on eBay. >> Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). What I've been reading is that the 60mm lens is one of Nikon's sharpest ever, but that the 105s come close. My manual for the VR 105 says that depth of field at 0.314 meters is 0.31 - 0.32 pretty much at any f/stop. At 0.5 meters, (1:3), the chart shows a shallower depth of field under f/11 (as in none, though the inch chart on p 87 shows 2/16ths in. at 1.5 feet). This may be because of the internal focusing, or the chart is confused. Looks like stopping down to f/16 would be more useful here than at 1:1. The 60mm doesn't have IF so will have an effective lower stop when extended. I couldn't find a manual for it on the Nikon site, but it's being offered for sale with a rebate. SignatureRebecca Ore >>>The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you don't >>>have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that is an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > effect on DOF there but not enough to effect the immediate slice of > sharpness available in very closeup macro work. Yes, you are correct. http://www.answers.com/topic/depth-of-field So actually the 60mm doesn't give you more DOF than the 105 given the same subject framing. And this holds true at all distances, not just macro distances. Toby >>>>The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you >>>>don't have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that is [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Toby So, are you saying that the DOF would be exactly the same with the 60mm as the 105? Assuming the framing is equal on both cameras. I did a little research, and it looks like at 1:1 the only difference between the two lenses is the 60 minimum focusing distance is 8 3/4", while the 105 is 1 foot. That's not much. If that bee has a mind to sting you I think it will get you with either lens. The 60 2.8 would probably make a nice portrait lens, too. I also think the 60mm would fit into a lens selection of 18~70 kit lens and an 80~200 2.8 better than the 105mm. Often, you need to get closer to keep things in the foreground out of the way. >>>>>The 60 is nice, no question. One advantage with the 105 is that you >>>>>don't have to get as close to your subject, but only you know if that [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > and an 80~200 2.8 better than the 105mm. Often, you need to get closer to > keep things in the foreground out of the way. Yes Paul is correct and I was wrong. With equal framing you get the same depth of field at the same aperture. If both lenses go to 1:1 then the only real choice is in the angle of view. You will get a wider view of the background with the 60, although with macro mostly it will be out of focus anyway. Objects shot with the 105 will appear slightly foreshortened (compressed) as compared to the 60. You will get more camera shake with the 105, though at macro distances you will get a lot with either lens. You should probably choose based on which lens is best for you in a non macro mode. The 60 becomes a 90mm equivalent (35mm), quite a nice portrait length. The 105 becomes a 157.5, which is a nice short telephoto length, but slightly long for portraits. Toby > You should probably choose based on > which lens is best for you in a non macro mode. The 60 becomes a 90mm > equivalent (35mm), quite a nice portrait length. The 105 becomes a > 157.5, which is a nice short telephoto length, but slightly long for > portraits. It's a tough call that revolves around personal taste. Though, some people don't like the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D because they feel the bokeh isn't as creamy or nice, I say it's a better choice over the 60mm macro for portraits. I like the 50mm f/1.4. I agree that the 105mm is a bit on the long side for portraits, but can be usable. A lot of people still use the 85mm and find it not a problem with the 1.5x crop factor. Rita >> You should probably choose based on >> which lens is best for you in a non macro mode. The 60 becomes a 90mm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > portraits, but can be usable. A lot of people still use the 85mm and find > it not a problem with the 1.5x crop factor. I still have my 85 1.8 (AI), which is a wonderful lens for portraits and can really blur the background. Just doesn't couple to the meter or autofocus, and I've shot some portraits with the 105 AF Macro. They looked good, too. It's just with an 80~200 2.8 already in my bag, the 105 would seem like overlap. I can always pull out the zoom for portraits. I did some searches on the Net looking for reviews, and some people use the 60 2.8 Macro as their main lens. Pretty much gets 5 stars all around, depending on the Web site. Anyway, I ordered the lens today from B&H. With the rebate it costs the same at the import, and not much more than a used one on eBay. This should complete my lens collection for quite awhile. I'll have the 18~70 kit, the 80~200 2.8, a 500mm mirror, and the 60mm 2.8 Macro. My old lenses, which worked fine on my D70 but had no AF and did not couple to the meter, are a 28mm, an 85mm 1.8, a 55mm Macro, an 80~200 and the 500mm mirror. Since they all have the same mount, I can use all the lenses on my old Nikon F, except the kit zoom lens. Geez. If I really get into this again I'm gonna need another digital camera body. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) >I did some searches on the Net looking for reviews, and some people use the >60 2.8 Macro as their main lens. Pretty much gets 5 stars all around, >depending on the Web site. > >Anyway, I ordered the lens today from B&H. With the rebate it costs the >same at the import, and not much more than a used one on eBay. I paid $325 for the one I bought on eBay a couple days ago. Or $336.45 with the shipping and insurance. Almost never used. Did you also order the $21.95 lens hood? I was thinking of stopping by B&H after work and picking one up. Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). > I paid $325 for the one I bought on eBay a couple days ago. Or $336.45 > with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). Yeah. I went ahead and got the lens hood and a filter. I never use lens caps. I realize that I may not be able to use the lens hood in some situations, but it does help protect the lens. BTW, you might be the one who beat me out on that lens. The last one I was watching went for $255, so I "assumed" the next one would go for about the same. When I kept getting beat out at over $300 I decided to just get a new one with a full warranty. > BTW, you might be the one who beat me out on that lens. The last one > I was watching went for $255, so I "assumed" the next one would go > for about the same. When I kept getting beat out at over $300 I > decided to just get a new one with a full warranty. Yep! This is the exact scenario that makes buying lenses on eBay very difficult. The only way you would have gotten a deal on that lens was to search for newly listed improperly price "Buy It Now" auctions. You did the right thing by spending a couple more dollars and buying a new one with manufacturer's warranty. Rita > Geez. If I really get into this again I'm gonna need another digital > camera body. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) LOL! I know what you mean, it never stops! Rita > So, are you saying that the DOF would be exactly the same with the > 60mm as the 105? Assuming the framing is equal on both cameras. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sting you I think it will get you with either lens. The 60 2.8 would > probably make a nice portrait lens, too. The added focusing distance of the 105 makes it easier for creative lighting techniques, at least for me it does. Plus, the added distance gives you a better chance of not getting too close and spooking your subject. > I also think the 60mm would fit into a lens selection of 18~70 kit > lens and an 80~200 2.8 better than the 105mm. Often, you need to get > closer to keep things in the foreground out of the way. My personal choice is to use my macro lens exclusively for macro since I have other lenses for other requirements. I have both the 105mm AF-D and 105mm VR and for my taste and style of shooting I prefer the old 105mm AF-D. Both are optical great and pretty much equal. Rita >> So, are you saying that the DOF would be exactly the same with the >> 60mm as the 105? Assuming the framing is equal on both cameras. I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > AF-D. > Both are optical great and pretty much equal. I agree with you, but already made my choice so it's too late now. Besides, I'm often more concerned with the subject spooking ME. I have taken some great shots using my old 55mm Macro and the SB800 with the diffuser on it. In this case the shorter lens helps as there's less in the way of the flash. I like to shoot spiders. I'm also hoping even though I will usually stop down to get more DOF, the 2.8 will give me a brighter field of view and better focusing before the camera stops down. > I agree with you, but already made my choice so it's too late now. > Besides, I'm often more concerned with the subject spooking ME. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 2.8 will give me a brighter field of view and better focusing before > the camera stops down. I know what you mean. I got stung five times while photographing birds the other day. I must have accidentally stepped on a yellow jacket nest. As for the SB800, I use a flashbracket with a cheap mini-ballhead that works great for moving the flash in the right position. Rita > Currently I have an older 55mm AI Micro lens, and I'd like to upgrade to a > lens with AF and one that will couple to my D70's meter. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Sheldon Just bought a 55 f2.8 AF and it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. That said I also copy paintings for artists and that was the specific reason for this lens, the flat field and no distortion make it a great lens for that type of work. If I wanted a lens for more macro (micro actually Nikon is right) I'd get the 105 VR (or not VR) this is also a great lens. I've used the nonVR model and it isn't a heavy lens. When you are down to magnifications of 1:2 or 1:1 remember depth of field is dependent on magnification not focal length, so in micro/macro ranges there is no difference in DOF. I have been surprised by some of the photos taken with a 70-200 lens and the Canon multi-element closeup lens ?500C?. That is an alternative, with a long focal length lens like that you need a long extension tube, often 2x teleextenders work better than extension tubes. Tom |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.