AF-S DX VR II Micro 85mm f/3.5G ED

<p>Please help me to decide which Micro lenses fit my style!</p>

<p>1. Newly AF-S DX VR II Micro 85mm f/3.5G ED<br /> 2. AF-S Micro 105mm f/2.8G VR IF-ED<br /> 3. AF-S Micro 60mm f/2.8G ED.</p>

<p>I use D300 Nikon body. My area of interest for the use of the lens will be food photography, small products (perfume bottles, jewelery,etc) and may be portraiture? Not sure about the last one because I already have 85/1.8D. I am not sure if 105 micro will add much usefulness in my lens arsenal for portraiture.<br /> <br /> So what do you think the best of most versatile of all in term of focal length usefulness, depth of field, sharpness? And the second things to consider are weight/compact, VR, and perhaps, price?<br /> Much advice are appreciated! Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For food? The 60/2.8. You can prove that to yourself by putting your 85/1.8 on, and seeing how far away from a table you have to be to frame certain shots. On a DX body, 60mm still has you backing away, or needing to get well above the table for place setting shots. <br /><br />Nothing wrong with longer focal lengths for that sort of thing, provided you have the room to work and want to see the perspective compression that kicks in as you go to longer focal lengths. Meaning: the longer the lens, the <em>flatter</em> that apple, turkey leg, or cabbage is going to look. <br /><br />The portraiture issue is tricky, because it depends on whether you're talking head shots, torsos, or full-length people. For full length, you're going to be close to 20 feet away with a 60mm lens (if the camera is in a vertical orientation). The 60/2.8 is certainly sharp, but doesn't have the most pleasing bokeh, if you like that creamy out of focus background look.</p>

<p>85mm is a medium-long tele on a DX body such as the D300. I also feel that it is too long for food photography if we are talking about various dishes and cake on a plate type. A small plate is a rather large subject for macro work and you don't want to use a tele for that.</p>

<p>A tele macro is more suitable for perfume bottles, lip stick type subject, though.</p>

<p>Think about whether you will move to FX in the future and get dedicated macro lenses for product photography such as the 85mm/f2.8 PC-E. There are enough FX macro lenses around such as the 60mm, 105mm and the two PC-E lenses that you might want to avoid the 85mm DX macro. For the wide end, you essentially cannot avoid DX lenses on a DX body; the long end is a totally different situation.</p>

<p>You might wanna consider the fairly new Tamron 60mm macro as well because it is one of the success stories of Tamron's line of lenses.</p>

<p>The longer lenses (like the 105mm and 85mm) gives you the advantage to be further away from the subject. This seems more suitable for insects. Since your focus is on foods, you do not need this advantage so, the 60mm lens may just be enough for your needs.</p>

 

Of the three you list, I agree that the 60 would be best for food. But you could get equal (at least) quality with a used 55mm f/3.5 Micro for much less money; you won't want to use auto focus for this work anyway. Or, at the other end of the price spectrum, the 45mm PC-E Micro seems like it would be a good choice.

<p>Thank you for your responds. I am heading toward 60 mm I guess as you all suggested. Tamron 60/2.0 is tempting but the problem is it has the same price with nikon's 60/2.8 and it is only for DX bodies whereas nikon's 60/2.8 is FX lens.<br>

I guess I am leaning toward Nikon's!<br>

Thank you everyone!</p>

<p>As long as you'll be using bodies that have a built-in AF motor, don't forget to keep an eye out for a 60/2.8 D (the version before the current AF-S / G flavor). Most users treat their macro lenses well, and that eariler version is a true gem. I see that KEH has one in EX+ condition for under $300. That's a great deal for that lens. It's exactly the one I use on my D300. I don't miss the AF-S at all for that sort of use. </p>

<p>60/2.8 AF-S -- a very versatile lens, very good image quality and a very hand focal length on DX. It works well for half body and head and shoulders portraits too.</p>

<p>A 55mm f3.5 AI can be bought for almost nothing and this is one of the best macro lenses. Try it out and see if you like the focal length.</p>

<p>If it is too short for you try a macro lens near 105mm. Almost any lens will do since it is easy to produce a macro near 100mm^^. If you are luck you might find a used old Kiron 105mm - google for this to get opinions.</p>

<p>For the perfume bottles and especially jewelery the Zeiss 100mm F2.0 Macro lens will do. I heard this is the only lens that is adequate to shoot diamonds ^^.<br>

No seriously you might like the "creamy bokeh" of the Zeiss. Are these items not sold for the good feelings? If you only sell one more diamond ring you have the many $$ for the Zeiss in the pocket (well almost serious ^^).</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2344388">Matt Laur</a> "For food? The 60/2.8. ... The 60/2.8 is certainly sharp, but doesn't have the most pleasing bokeh, if you like that creamy out of focus background look."<br>

I do agree with the first point made by Matt. But in my opinion the 60mm F2.8 AFS lens has good bokeh, including nice round highlights. The earlier 60mm F2.8 AFD lens has had bokeh, with angular highlights, and a busy appearance. Of course a background with lots of out of focus detail will always look cluttered, but the more recent lens will render it better.</p>

<p>Thanks, Leif, for clarifying that.</p>

<p>I can also confirm that the 60 AF-S has clearly better bokeh than the 60/2.8 AF-D based on the photos I have seen. The AF-S is an improvement in many areas it also works better at longer distances and the manual focus feel is a lot better than with its predecessor.</p>

<p>Walter, I heard good things about this lens but the main problem is the auto focus. I had an eye surgery recovering from retinal detachment last year and my eyesight is not normal anymore (a bit blurry). So I heavily depend on camera's auto focus accuracy to get the job done. So I guess, I am going to get the 60/2.8 the AF-S as everyone suggested above. thanks!</p>

<p>Edward sorry to hear that - I wish you all the best for at least some recovery.</p>

<p>Edward, I don't know how your eyesight is now, but since you have a D300, I would use live view to fine tune your macro focusing. For macro work, depth of field control is critical. As long as your subject is static, I would give live view a try.</p>

<p>You'll be happy with the 60mm. It's a great lens, but you might also think about the 45 PCE recommendation. Being able to adjust your plain of focus vs stopping down for DOF would be a tremendous asset.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=608315">Walter Schroeder</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 21, 2010; 10:00 a.m.<br /> Edward sorry to hear that - I wish you all the best for at least some recovery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you Walter!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 21, 2010; 10:58 a.m.<br /> Edward, I don't know how your eyesight is now, but since you have a D300, I would use live view to fine tune your macro focusing. For macro work, depth of field control is critical. As long as your subject is static, I would give live view a try.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely! D300's live view is such a tremendous asset for me. It helps me a lot!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5575194">Ted Thayer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 21, 2010; 12:09p.m.<br /> You'll be happy with the 60mm. It's a great lens, but you might also think about the 45 PCE recommendation. Being able to adjust your plain of focus vs stopping down for DOF would be a tremendous asset.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and the price justifies it! :) If I can afford 45 PC-E, the first thing I am gonna do is upgrade to FX bodies..:)</p>

<p>Even if one's eyesight is perfect, live view is still preferable because viewfinders are not accurate enough for really critical focusing at high resolutions. I'm sorry to hear about your eye condition, but at the same time I feel that we are lucky to have all these focusing aides at our disposal.<br>

I didn't mention the 85 PC, which is an excellent lens. It is however more expensive than the others and not the best lens for moving subjects. But for non-moving or slowly moving subjects it's one of my favorites, a true classic. I you like the focal length and have the the money, this lens is worth a consideration.</p>