60mm Micro Nikkor D on a D300

LATE EDIT.

 

Maybe I'm remembering this?

 

Automatic Bellows for Nikon Z-Mount

Mind you, lenses do not do better on small sensors, but the part of their images that often are a bit poorer in quality are not used. So they do just as well on small as on on large sensors, minus the bit where they could have beeb better.

SO- lenses with great center performance and really crappy edge performance make better images on a crop sensor.

Lenses with this characteristic make better images with a crop sensor. The 55/1.2 Nikkor falls into this category. The lens pushed center performance. Problems with vignetting are greatly reduced. Field curvature at edges- reduced. Soft edges- gone. These things make a technically better picture.

As long as noone gets the idea that these lenses behave differently on different formats.

On larger sensors, they project a good center image with less good peripheral performance. On a crop sensor, you get less. Only the center part. The lens performs as it always does, unaware of what is going on behind it.

Ed, subject area still is field of view. And field of view = subject area. No different definitions or interpretations exist, despite the many words you wrote about focal length and subject distance, how those two variables can be combined and expressed in one variable, angle of view, despite your excursion into how some macro lenses achieve higher magnification without increasing image distance by much, etc.

 

You just made a mistake in your post, mistaking increase for decrease.

 

The subject area = field of view is not a theoretical entity that changes with different interpretations. It is the size, in the real world, of the area captured on film or sensor. Nothing else. And very untheoretical.

All of Nikon's micro-Nikkors are fine performers, and honestly, you won't see exactly how good they are on a 12 megapixel AA filtered camera.

Do tiresome...

Ed said that for the same field of view (which is not a different field of view) you need to increase magnification when using a crop sensor. You don't. You need to do the opposite. No matter what irrelevant nonsense you, Rodeo, throw into this and many other threads. Want to see a troll? Look no further than RJ.

Hmmm?

Leaping in to nit-pick on someone else's reply, over 7 posts, and with no actual response to the OP's question?

 

Who's the troll I wonder?

 

Go on q.g. make it 8 total wastes of our time!

 

And do you really expect to poke a hornet's nest without being stung?

Troll.

The subject area = field of view is not a theoretical entity that changes with different interpretations. It is the size, in the real world, of the area captured on film or sensor. Nothing else. And very untheoretical.

If one takes the FOV in it's angular sense, as many do, then imaging distance changes the 'area captured on film or sensor' completely.

 

With the aforementioned 60mm macro, I can capture the area of a single, small postage stamp OR the whole of Stonehenge.

 

Same FOV, distinctly different areas.... 32mm x 22mm Versus 35m x 7m.

 

LATE EDIT.

 

Or I guess the more obvious comparison is a 24mm wide angle which can capture the same area as a 200mm telephoto lens, despite them having vastly different FOV.

Edited November 21, 2020 by mike_halliwell

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D - DxOMark

 

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D - DxOMark

 

DX0Mark tested the 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor with FX and DX format cameras. The biggest improvement was vignetting at F2.8. Overall sharpness of the lens is fairly consistent across the frame.

 

So to answer the original question: there will not be much of an increase in quality of the images produced, with the exception of some vignetting at F2.8 on an FX format camera, 0.9ev reduced to 0.4ev.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Brian

Nikon Nikkor AF Micro 60 mm f/2.8D review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Yup. seems about right.

If one takes the FOV in it's angular sense, as many do, then imaging distance changes the 'area captured on film or sensor' completely.

 

With the aforementioned 60mm macro, I can capture the area of a single, small postage stamp OR the whole of Stonehenge.

 

Same FOV, distinctly different areas.... 32mm x 22mm Versus 35m x 7m.

 

LATE EDIT.

 

Or I guess the more obvious comparison is a 24mm wide angle which can capture the same area as a 200mm telephoto lens, despite them having vastly different FOV.

 

Of course does field of view change with subject distance. And with angle of view.

 

That does not change the simple fact that Ed got it backward.

 

So many words to circumvent acknowledging a simple mistake...

And field of view = subject area

No it doesn't.

 

You can't have an = between something that doesn't change and something that does.

Mike,

 

You can between two things that are identical.

Use Google and all the books you can find. And explain why you think they are two separate entities.

This has turned into one of the pettiest of arguments on this forum in a long time.

 

The answer to the OP's original question was simple.

 

This Tangent should be taken somewhere else.

It's ok, I got my answer. Looks like it would be a great combination. Thanks!

The FOV, as expressed as an angle, doesn't change whereas the area captured does.

 

Simple to understand.

 

I did a comparison between the Tamron 60mm f2 DX macro and the 60mm Nikon AFD.

 

The Tamron was notably sharper at f4, so I used that with a D7200 for focus stacking.

 

I sold the Nikon not long after.

 

However, there are times I regret it, especially as I'm now trying to move away from DX.

 

I occasionally scan the 2nd hand pages for one, they hold their price very well!

This has turned into one of the pettiest of arguments on this forum in a long time.

Yep. It's almost like the old days.:eek:

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be....

 

:D

The FIELD of view is NOT the ANGLE of view, Mike.

 

Enough of this nonsense.

Me: FOV,..... are we talking Linear or Angular?

 

You, "In itself a good question."

 

Not so clear cut is it, as you say.

 

Enough indeed.

Most manufacturers specify the coverage of a lens as the angle of view, typically on the diagonal if otherwise unspecified. That value changes somewhat as the lens is racked in or out for focusing, but even more if the focal length changes in the process. The Nikon 105mm macro is a prime example. Its focal length is 105 mm at infinity but about 80 mm at 1:1.

 

If you specify the subject area covered, you must also specify the distance. Hasselblad macro charts specify only the range of distances and the subject areas covered. This probably explains q.g._de_bakker's one-sided point of view. IMO, the Hasselblad charts are much more useful when selecting a lens and extension tubes (or bellows) for a particular application than the scant information provided in a specification sheet.

 

I opened up this discussion because in a non-scientific forum, people often talk past each other because they use the same words to describe different aspects of the same phenomena. (Actually, the same thing happens in the scientific community, and the disagreements are even more intense.)

Sometimes (sigh...) Ed, one aspect is the thing that is relevant, while others are not. In your post you talked about the extent in the real world covered by the image on the sensor, and that you would need more (and that was wrong) magnification to cover the same field on a smaller sensor. You need, of course, less magnification.

Very clear. No angles and distances involved. Unecessary to mention those. Talk about angles of view is not talking past other people, but past the point and past proper understanding. It was and is such a simple matter...

I was tempted by the low price to purchase the AF-D 60mm a few times when it made an appearance in the used lens counter of my local camera store (sadly now gone); I never purchased one though as I could not come up with a good reason to own one. Especially not as a substitute for a faster 50mm prime. Very close working distance make the macro feature not very useful in the field. f/2.8 doesn't allow much in terms of shallow DOF at normal focus distances (and is usually too shallow at close focus distances). In addition, the lens is optimized for close-up and may well lack behind other lenses at infinity. I was also not fond of the what appeared to me quite fragile mechanism that changes the entire lens appearance when focusing closer (CRC correction). The fact that the lens AF is screw-driven (and not AF-S), doesn't have an IF design and spots the breakage-prone A-M ring configuration then sealed its fate for me. Also, on DX, I never had much use for the 50/60mm focal length.

lens AF is screw-driven (and not AF-S),

It's interesting to note the on the Nikon Z lens line up, they have both a 50mm (Non S) micro and a 105mm micro (S Line).

 

Why the Pro and No-Pro spec between 50mm and 105mm is curious.

 

If silhouettes are to be believed, it's also quite a bit shorter than the 50mm 1.8 S

This grows tiresome. In context, I said that a smaller sensor requires more magnification to display the results than a FF sensor. When taking the photo, a DX sensor needs less magnification, i.e., 1:1.5 rather than 1:1 for a slide. This offsets any advantage to using only the center of the image circle of the lens.

Short focal length macro lenses are usefull because they reach higher magnifications with less extension (an amount equal to the focal length extra, i.e. in total twice the focal length for 1:1. Once the focal length again for every next full step in magnification. 3x 60 mm or 3x 105 mm extra for 3:1 is quite a difference), or require less tricks such as changing/reducing the focal length and thus changing the lens make up while maintaining quality. Shorter is easier to work with and easier to make.

For high magnification work, even shorter focal lengths are used.

That, not angle or field of view considerations, is what behind the focal length choice. They are traditionally close to standard lens focal length, not to double as such, but to avoid needing retrofocus designs and still be as short as possible. Longer macro lenses were made for work that required more working distance.

So 60 mm isn't that short for a macro lens.

 

But then, i don't think extra extension tubes or bellows are used as much as they used to be, and what magnification can be reached using a lens by itself will be as far as most photographers may go. So that consideration isn't worth what it used to be. The traditional short focal length however has survived.

Edited November 24, 2020 by q.g._de_bakker