60mm Micro Nikkor D on a D300

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Sanford, Nov 17, 2020.

  1. 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.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
  2. 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.
  3. The same subject area = the same field of view, Ed. You used the term correctly.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
    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?
  10. 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.


    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.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2020
  11. 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.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2020
  12. 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...
  13. No it doesn't.

    You can't have an = between something that doesn't change and something that does.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. It's ok, I got my answer. Looks like it would be a great combination. Thanks!
    c.p.m._van_het_kaar and Brian like this.
  17. 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!

Share This Page