andy_chubb Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 All, just a quick straw poll (if that is possible!). I'm up for buying a 60mm macro lens - if I could get one is it worth trying to get hold of the older Nikkor 60mm D version, or is the newer AF-S version worth the extra £110 (about $200)? Has anyone experience of both lenses? I've a D80 at the moment - would look to move to a D700 next summer and will use the lens for portrait as well as macro. I've discounted the 105 as it was slightly too long for what I'm planning to use this lens for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tachion Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I have the 60mm AF, even older than the "D" version and it is a great lens. I don't know if the the AF-S version has improved optics. It may, but it is hard to imagine since the 60mm AF is already very sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 There is a very recent thread you should search on that will answer your question. There are benefits to both in my opinion. The 105mm is a superb lens however. I've seen very good things about the new 60mm VR though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuo_zhao Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 >> "I've seen very good things about the new 60mm VR though." The AF-S 60 doesn't have VR. http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qp1v That was the recent discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 60 is a good macro for APS. It will probably be too short for a D700 and most portraits but certainly can be used for shots including much of the body, just not for head shots. The AF D version is the old screwdriver type focus which are being phased out in favor of AF motors inside the lens barrel. It is a fine lens, but if you select 60 mm, then I would get the new version. The problem with the new G lenses is the large size diameter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tachion Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Ronald, other than that it is new, is there any real reason to get the new version? Is it in any way better, except that it has AF-S? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Sorry Shuo, I meant "G". Remember when there weren't that many letters!? And Tachion's point is what I meant by the D is worthwhile because of the aperture ring. I use the aperture adjustment a lot in macro, as well as manual focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 For true macro work where AF is of little value. AFS is probably a doubtful addition, unless you intend to use it extensively for general photography. Even then, there are probably better choices. Don't let that discourage you from buying the lens. I use my 60mm Micro Nikkor quite a bit, especially for copy work. For regular macros, I prefer the greater working distance of the 105mm Micro Nikkor, or my 85mm tilt/shift PC Nikkor. Next up will be the 200mm Micro Nikkor for when I can't get close enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now