Macro Lens

<p>I am looking to purchase a macro lens for wedding phtoography as well as very small items (obviously). I will be using this lens on a D300s and am pretty sure it will be the 60mm lens. Here are two options:<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545660-USA/Nikon_2177_AF_S_Micro_Nikkor_60mm_f_2_8G.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545660-USA/Nikon_2177_AF_S_Micro_Nikkor_60mm_f_2_8G.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66987-USA/Nikon_1987_60mm_f_2_8D_Macro_Autofocus.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66987-USA/Nikon_1987_60mm_f_2_8D_Macro_Autofocus.html</a><br>

Can someone with either of them provide their opinion? Also, is there a big difference between the two? Finally, is there a different focal length that is a better option (in your opinion)?<br>

Thank you</p>

<p>the biggest difference is AF-S. also, the newer lens has nano-crystal coat = less flare. for the price differential,it's worth it to have faster focusing if you intend to use this for portraits as well as macro.</p>

<p>In my wedding days (in a past life) we would just carry a set of CU filters in our pocket. Faster than a lens change and we could do whatever closeup was required - If you must buy a lens, I'd think about a 105mm as it provides more room (distance) for lighting and doubles as a fine portrait lens as well.<br>

Personally, in a fast moving wedding environment I'd stick with CU filters. My two cents.<br>

g</p>

<p>Preston - Shot today with the new Nikon 60mm. I actually had the 105mm and replaced it with this lens because of the closer focusing distance.</p><div></div>

<p>I have the AF Micor 60mm 2.8D and I have only good things to say about this lens. I do manual focus , mainly with macro shots, so the AF-S is not missed.<br>

You can check my portfolio and look at the water drop shots, the spiders, and macro shots as well as the refraction shots. All of these were done with this lens. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have two macro lenses; the AF-S 105mm VR and a 35 year old 55 mm f/3.5 PC Auto Micro-Nikkor. The latter beats the 105mm optically and it's much smaller and lighter as well. It's not as convenient though and working distance is tighter.</p>

<p>The 105mm's AF and VR make it a solid (though slightly long on DX) portrait lens, making it probably more versatile than the 60mm for wedding photography. Gary's suggestion to get a close-up filter for a decent telephoto lens is a good one as well, in fact, I'm not sure I would buy a dedicated macro lens again if I was given the choice. I use my 105mm VR more for portraiture than I do for macro, and my old 200mm f/4 AI with extension tube is better for macro work in the field than the 105 is. The 55/3.5 is useful for copy work though.</p>

<p>For weddings, something like the 70-200 or 80-200, with a CU filter for close-up work, and a wide-angle zoom like the 17-35 are probably the only two lenses you'd need. Throw in a fast 50 or 85mm prime for low light portraiture work and you're set.</p>

<p>Frank or Gary, would you recommend specific CU filters (and/or caution against any specific CU filters)? </p>

<p>I'm a big fan of Nikon's macro lenses (60/2.8 AFS, 105/2.8 VR and 200/4) and use all three on a daily basis. I also have the 55/2.8, but never use it. To determine any real difference in resolution would require more charts than I want to deal with, since they're all remarkably good. I also find auto focus useful at times with macro work, despite the conventional wisdom against it. When I'm balanced in an awkward position trying to frame the composition I want, having the camera focus for me, gives me another hand for stability. I don't use if often, but it's a real asset.</p>

<p>The 105/2.8 is the most useful overall for macro, but on DX it's a bit long for portraits. The 60/2.8 is the right focal length for portraits, but I prefer a stop faster at this length for shallower DOF.</p>

<p>I've only shot a couple of weddings (years ago), but have shot a lot of portraits with film. The 85/2 (or faster) and the 105/2.5 were my favorites and got about 90+% of my shots. I haven't found a DX lens I like for portraits, but I hope the Voigtlander 58/1.4 works (my next lens).</p>

<p>The new Nikon 60mm f2.8 sounds like it will fit your needs fine. I personally use the good old Nikon 55mm f3.5 as it's usually better to MF for macro shots anyways and love it. </p>