Which Macro Lens ?

[arkin_kora]

Hi everyone,

 

I know little about Macro lenses so want ask about them. We call them

macro but Nikon's web site uses the names micro and macro. Any ideas ?

 

Apart from focal distance what is the difference between macro

capabilities of different lenses ?

 

I have an old 28-85 mm zoom lens that I do not use. This has macro

capability too. Will there be difference between this lens and the new

ones ?

 

The new 105 mm macro looks nice to me too since I think I can shoot

nice portraits with this lens.

 

Do you have any suggestions ?

 

Thanks !

[joseph_smith3]

What camera will you use it on? What type of images will you be primarily taking? Will the subject be stationary, like a flower or stamp, or moving, like an butterfly?

 

AF is not important for macro lenses, and older Nikon manual focus macro lenses might be what you need if your camera will meter with them. The longer macro lenses, like 200mm, give you greater working distance from the subject, a plus in my opinion.

 

If you can use mf lenses on your camera, consider the Nikon 200mm f 4.0 macro lens. It comes with a tripod mounting collar. So does its AF version, but it is really expensive, but an excellent lens. The 105mm mf or AF macro lens does not come with a tripod collar and minimizes its usefulness for serious macro work. The shorter focal length 55mm mf or 60mm AF lenses are both excellent, but yiu will be using them really close to your subject.

 

Joe Smith

[bwcombs]

Ditto what Joseph said.

 

If you are shooting digital, the 60mm Nikon is a very good lens

for portraits. Effective length of 90mm on a DSLR. Very sharp,

some say too sharp.

[leicaglow]

Arkin, Joseph and B W raise some good points. If you want a manual Micro-Nikkor, then the 55mm and 105mm are great lenses. I use the 60mm now for fast commercial work not requiring a larger format, and on ocassion I have a hard time lighting a product because the front of the lens is so close to the subject. In this case, the 105mm would work better. The term macro and micro are used interchangeably, but I believe, at one time, one meant 1:1 ratios and smaller while the other was a designator for close up work.

 

I also use a commercial light tent, and the 105mm would be a lot more difficult to use through the limited number and size shooting ports. If you have the money, don't forget about the Nikkor 85mm f/2.8 macro with tilt and shift capability. It turns your Nikon camera into a sort of mini view camera.

 

The current 60mm, 105mm and 200mm all give 1:1 reproduction ratios. These lenses should give you better edge to edge sharpness than a zoom that also has macro capability. Just because a lens focuses close doesn't mean it is optically prudent to use it for macro work.

 

As pointed out, the 60mm is a great portrait lens on the Nikon DX digital format. I use it for portrait shots all the time.

 

Another consideration is buying extension tubes and using them with a 35, 45, or 50mm lens. I also have the PB-6 bellows that I use a lot, and they can be had used in mint shape off the auction site for about $200. It is overkill for most shots, but you can have a lot of microscopic fun. And I always recommend a cheap way of doing macro: buy the inexpensive BR-2 reversing ring that lets you connect your lens backwards to the ring, then attach it to your Nikon F mount.

 

All of this to say: if you have the money to buy the Nikkor 105mm, do it! You can't go wrong with this lens.

[arnabdas]

Arkin, for a long time I owned the 60/2.8AF, 105/2.8AF, 200/4AF Micro nikkors.

 

I understand the 105/2.8 micro nikkors are very popular because of the perfect balance of size, cost and FL. But I found myself using the 105 the least.. I tend to use the 200/4 AF when I need WD and/or need to isolate subject, and 60/2.8 when I needed wider perspective such as getting "inside" a flower. Besides I always hated the 105's bokeh so I traded it for a Tamron 90/2.8 SP AF Macro. Later I added a 100/2.8 AF Tokina and 105/4 AIS Micro.

 

But of course, if you want a decent mid-tele macro lens on a budget, the 105 AF Micro is pretty good. If nothing else, the build quality is terrific.

 

But if you add the 60 and 200 micros later on, you may find yourself using 105 less and less.

[gib]

the manual focus Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 lens is pretty good, but it depends on what ratio

of magnification you need.

[arkin_kora]

Thanks a lot !

[alfarabi]

Don't ignore the Vivitar 100 mm Macro