60mm Micro Nikkor D on a D300

I use a 50mm Nikkor F1.8 on a D300 with excellent results. I've read that with a crop sensor camera I'm getting the best center portion of one of Nikon's best lenses. Is the same true of the Micro Nikkor D?

In a word, yes. The center portion is usually, if not always, sharper than the corners of a lens When you use a full frame lens on a crop sensor camera, you are using the center portion of the lens and excluding the edges.

My experience with the D200/sensor gave different results with several lenses (focusing, color fringing)* .. the D300 was very forgiving.

And to your question: I have a 60/2.8 AF (..non-D?) almost as a standard-go-everywhere lens on my D800.

...which should illustrate that I really like the lens. It is OK at longer distances and excellent closer by.

* not to bash the camera as a whole in retrospect! I loved that camera, including the sensor .. now collecting dust in a drawer.

While it is true a DX sensor uses only the heart of the image circle, it also requires more magnification to achieve the same effective field of view, which offsets any advantage. Macro lenses are designed to have a flat field throughout the FOV at close range, but tend to suffer at normal distances.

A 60 mm macro on a FF camera is best used for copying and macro subjects. At magnifications approaching 1:1, the working distance (front of lens to the subject) is very short, tending to cast shadows, and exaggerates the perspective. Closeups in nature benefit from a longer focal length and greater working distance. The effective focal length of 90 mm on a D300 gives you that advantage.

While it is true a DX sensor uses only the heart of the image circle, it also requires more magnification to achieve the same effective field of view, which offsets any advantage. Macro lenses are designed to have a flat field throughout the FOV at close range, but tend to suffer at normal distances.

 

A 60 mm macro on a FF camera is best used for copying and macro subjects. At magnifications approaching 1:1, the working distance (front of lens to the subject) is very short, tending to cast shadows, and exaggerates the perspective. Closeups in nature benefit from a longer focal length and greater working distance. The effective focal length of 90 mm on a D300 gives you that advantage.

A smaller format requires less, not more magnification to achieve the same field of view.

to achieve the same field of view.

Depends if you mean print/screen field of view, or lens field of view.

On a 12 mp D300, I seriously doubt you'll see any significant difference in image quality between a 50mm f/1.8 and a 60mm micro-Nikkor. Not at like-for-like apertures.

A smaller format requires less, not more magnification to achieve the same field of view.

I was referring to more magnification for the same size of display (e.g.,print). For the same FOV and detail, the lens must have 50% more resolution than on a FF sensor.

Depends if you mean print/screen field of view, or lens field of view.[...]

It doesn't. The field of view is the field of view. You need more magnification, of the smaller format, to get the same print size. Which then displays that field of view at the same magnification as a same size print of a larger format.

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

One gets bigger with distance (Linear), the other (Angular) doesn't change.

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

 

One gets bigger with distance (Linear), the other (Angular) doesn't change.

In itself a good question. But not relevant; what we discussed above doesn't change whether it is the one or the other.

When it comes to making 1:1 copies of 35mm slides with DX or FX it does.

If you try to do it with the 60mm macro (39 Deg) set to 1:1 on the repro scale with a DX sensor it won't all fit because the angular FOV, so effectively a 90mm macro (28 deg), no longer 'sees' the whole slide area at that distance. You need to pull back and reset the magnification ratio...AKA refocus!

However, if you try it with Nikon's dedicated DX 40mm macro at 1:1 (38.5 Deg), you can.

As was discussed, the field of view at 1:1 is smaller than that of a larger format camera at 1:1, so you would have to reduce (not increase, Ed) magnification for the smaller format to capture the same field of view. (And yes, that cannot be done without refocusing. Red herring, because it is already implied).

When you print those same field of view captures to the same size print, the results of all format cameras will have the same magnification.

The angular field of view, what that depends on, does not change that.

I use a 50mm Nikkor F1.8 on a D300 with excellent results. I've read that with a crop sensor camera I'm getting the best center portion of one of Nikon's best lenses. Is the same true of the Micro Nikkor D?

All answers above may be true, but do not give a straight answer to the OP's question..

So : I have used the mentioned combination ( D300 as well as D300S) for several years, and my answer is : YES ...

"Depends if you mean print/screen field of view, or lens field of view."

It doesn't. The field of view is the field of view.

Of course it matters.

A 10" print at 18" presents a different field of view than a 20" print at the same distance. So to get the same final image size the smaller format needs more magnification. I.e. keeping the same relationship between subject size and viewed size.

...what we discussed above

As was discussed...

There was no discussion involved q.g.

Just your usual contradiction of opinions that don't agree with your own.

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.

The crop sensors get the highest resolution portion available from most (not all) lenses. Most lenses are sharpest in the center, drop off towards the edges. Micro-Nikkor lenses tend to have even performance across the entire field when stopped down 1 F-Stop. SO- the relative gain may not be as much as a standard lens. The Nikkor 55mm F1.2 has slightly better performance over the center 2/3rds of the image than the 50/1.4 of the same vintage. The edges on the 55/1.2- not so much. So that is an example of a lens that does much better on a 1.5x crop camera.

SO- some lenses will do much better on a crop sensor because the edge performance was always poor. The Micro-Nikkors, were known for edge-to-edge performance. The 60mm F2.8 AF-D Micro-Nikkor uses a floating element, "Close-Range-Correction" feature. The old 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor was optimized for 1:10 reproduction. It still is very sharp at infinity stopped down a bit.

An example of Classic Nikkors. Note the dots are the performance of the individual lens, the bars show the range of performance of similar lenses that were tested.

The 55/3.5 does well in the corners at F5.6. It is best in class at the center.

I misused the term "Field of View," when I meant the same subject area. If you were copying a slide with the same lens, the DX camera would use less magnification and be further from the slide. If you print or display that image at the same size, the DX camera would require more magnification. 1:1 is always the same magnification, but you would get less of the subject on a DX sensor.

It is possible that an FX lens on a DX camera would incur flare due to the extra light bouncing around inside the camera. In practice, it probably doesn't matter. I used DX sensors for years, but always with FX (film, actually) lenses without any unusual flare or internal reflection problems. If you think about it, only about 50% of the image circle is used with an FX sensor, with plenty of opportunity for internal reflections.

I misused the term "Field of View," when I meant the same subject area. If you were copying a slide with the same lens, the DX camera would use less magnification and be further from the slide. If you print or display that image at the same size, the DX camera would require more magnification. 1:1 is always the same magnification, but you would get less of the subject on a DX sensor.

 

It is possible that an FX lens on a DX camera would incur flare due to the extra light bouncing around inside the camera. In practice, it probably doesn't matter. I used DX sensors for years, but always with FX (film, actually) lenses without any unusual flare or internal reflection problems. If you think about it, only about 50% of the image circle is used with an FX sensor, with plenty of opportunity for internal reflections.

The same subject area = the same field of view, Ed. You used the term correctly.

The same subject area = the same field of view, Ed. You used the term correctly.

FOV is a parameter subject to different interpretations. The most objective (pun not intended) definition is the angular spread, or the size in the plane of focus at a specified distance. The angular spread is further defined by the diagonal, vertical or horizontal dimensions. Pick one, and someone will argue the other.

The angular spread depends on distance of the rear node to the image plane, which varies as the lens is focused, especially at close distances. The Nikon 60/2.8 further complicates matters by altering the focal length as it is focused, to limit the amount of extension needed for macro photography. As a consequence, setting the lens to cover the image area of a slide is an iterative process - focus-move-focus, ad infinitum. Fortunately there is a shortcut. If the lens has the reproduction ration engraved on the barrel, set it to 1:1 for an FX camera and 1:1.5 for a DX camera, then move the slide holder until it is in focus (For FX, I set the ratio to about 1:1.1, then touch it up with the focusing helix).

The subject area is subject to similar uncertainty. In theory, it applies only at the plane of focus. Well and good if you are copying documents, but real-world subjects have depth, as well as other things in front of or behind. The distance to the same subject depends on the real or effective focal length. The longer the effective focal length, the further you need to be to cover the same subject size, but the less, often distracting background is included. This last gem is why a 60'ish macro lens is less useful in nature than a longer lens, or a DX sensr. For that reason, many people think the Nikon 200/4 is the ideal lens for nature. I settle for 90 or 105 mm over a long-extinct 200, but am not averse to using a 300/4 with extension tubes.

Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Are we reading from the same page, or arguing over related but unequal terminology?

There was (is?) a company that made fully auto (EXP and AF) bellows for Nikons. There was a weird cable linkage for the comms link, but i never knew how the aperture shutdown was achieved.

I guess with the FTZ or an E lens, it should be easily doable. Just gently rack the body to and fro in AF-C until you get the framing you want.