New Micro lens

[roy ewel]

<p >I am going on a Caribbean Cruise in 10 days & I have some extra cash for a new lens. I was thinking of a macro lens. I have a D90 with 2 lenses a Nikkor 18-105 f/3.3-5.6G ED VR & a Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR<strong >. I am looking at an </strong><strong >AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED Micro lens. I have been told that this is a very good lens but I don’t know anyone that has used it. This lens is suited for general imaging as well. Has anyone used this lens & how well does it work. The lens runs around $730. But if there is one that’s better for a couple hundred more I would consider it. Thanks for your help.</strong></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What sort of subject matter do you anticipate shooting, Roy? That's a very nice lens, but the main reason to buy it is its ability to work <em>very</em> close to smallish objects. <br /><br />You already know, from using your 18-105, exactly how the 60mm focal length will treat you. On a D90, it's a short telephoto lens. For general walk-around and people stuff, it might feel just a little long... and at f/2.8 (and, actually, slower when you get right up close on things), it's actually not all that fast compared to something like Nikon's 35/1.8, 50/1.8 or their newer AF-S 50/1.4. <br /><br />At what focal lengths do you find yourself using the 18-105, now?</p>

[jeannean_.]

<p>The 60mm is a fine lens. As for a better one, it all depends on what you want to shoot with it. If the subjects will be static or slow moving, it should serve you well. If you will be shooting insects that fly or are spooked easily, it's going to be a bit short. You'd have to get so close to them most will fly away or run off. You'll need something in the 90-200 range for those types of subjects. I waffled back and forth between a Nikon 105 and the Sigma 150mm HSM 2.8 and finally decided on the Sigma 150, since I mainly shoot in the field and my subjects tend to be flying insects (butterflies, dragonflies, etc). I'm extremely pleased with the Sigma 150. It sells for $729 from Amazon/Adorama. It's also an excellent lens at a distance too.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>What kind of dollar are you talking about for that $730, Canadian? Australian? (The OP seems to be from Canada.)</p>

<p>B&H has this lens for $540:<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></p>

<p>If you want a short macro, this lens is a very good choice. I personally prefer 105 and 200mm macro lenese, though.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>A friend of mine uses it all the time for many different subjects (portrait, macro, nature, street...) and he keeps raving about it. The examples that I've seen indicate that the quality is quite good, so I'm looking to try it out myself.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I have a D90 with the 16-85 and the 70-300. I have all three macros (60, 105 & 200) and don't find the 60 as useful for macro work as the other two. It's also too slow and unforgiving for a portrait lens in DX. I use the 105 the most and only carry the 60 when I'm overburdened with other stuff.</p>

<p>I also like the 35/1.8 for it's compact size, speed and close focusing - it's price is also hard to resist.</p>

<p>I would think about a 10-24 for your trip instead of a macro. For tropical beaches ultra-wides are my favorites.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>I use the 60 AF-s daily as a newspaper PJ.</p>

<p>I shoot food with it all the time and use it for shorter portraits, story details, etc.</p>

<p>It's always in my bag and sharper that heck.</p>

<p>Get one for sure.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 60 AF-S Micro is a lens which you fall in love with and the only negative I can think of about it is that it'll potentially send you on a downward economic spiral as you try to find other lenses that will make images that have the magic the 60 AF-S is capable of. And you'll spend a lot of money in getting those if you get on that road. So the 60 AF-S is a sort of a trap. But you could also consider it a relatively affordable introduction to Nikon's finest.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>If you are looking for flaws, mind the very short macro working distance. Longer focal lengths allow more working distance and better background blur (subject isolation); however they are also more difficult to work with. The bonus with the 105mm is VR (useful for general shooting and maybe close-up, not macro). Most third party macros are also well regarded optically, lagging mainly in AF speed... like Sigma 70mm, Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm, Sigma 150mm. <br>

There is also a similarly priced new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro with considerably more working distance at the same focal length, wider aperture, and compact size. </p>

[roy ewel]

<p >Matt- It would use it for close ups more than anything. I use my 18-105 throughout its zoom. I shoot a lot of Roller Derby but I have to use my sb-900 flash. In the future I will have to look for a faster lens. I will post on that issue after my trip.</p>

<p >Jeannean – Have to look into that. I did take a pic of a fly at 300 zoom & it turned out pretty good.</p>

<p >Shun – Yes you are correct. It is Canadian funds. $539.95 US at the moment is only $578.56. Beats $730.00 by far</p>

<p >Oskar – Great. My camera guy was the one who suggested it to me.</p>

<p >Ted – I might have to look at 2 lenses now. I have to tell the wife after the trip so she doesn’t throw me over board.</p>

<p >Nic – Awesome</p>

<p >Ilkka – Good to know. </p>

<p >Sem – Never knew that about the Tamron 60mm f/2. </p>

<p >Thanks for your response. They are very helpful. </p>

[dpbours]

<p>I have to agree with some comments on the Sigma 150mm HSM 2.8!!<br>

I also have been going back and forth between the 105mm Micro Nikor and the Sigma 150mm. In the end I prefer the Sigma. Allthough both should be the same, it feels a slight bit more light sensitive and focus is spot on.<br>

Depending on what you are shooting, but I'd go for the Sigma 150mm HSM 2.8. Gives you a bit more distance as well.</p>

 

[roy ewel]

<p >I have 6 days to decide before my cruise. I think I might go with the Nikon AF-s 60 f2.8 EV Micro & the Nikon 12-24 f4 AF-S EU. The 60 f2.8 has dropped to $650. Canadian & the 12-24 is $985. I will talk to my camera guy on Monday & see what kind of deal he will give me on both. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have 6 days to decide before my cruise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A recent thread reminds all of us that if you are going on a trip or have some major event to shoot, make sure that you get your new equipment a little ahead of time. When you are buying locally, you can check out those new lenses immediately and also test them out a bit at home. If there are issues, exchange promptly. You don't want to discover problems with your new equipment during the trip.</p>

<p>Speaking of the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX, the newer 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX may be a better buy. The two produce similar image quality but the new one is a little wider.</p>

[roy ewel]

<p >Thank Shun. I did look at the 10-24 this week end & it’s only $100.00 more. I’m glad you told me about it because I didn’t know if the lens produces the same quality pics. </p>

[roy ewel]

<p >Thanks again to everybody for your help. Very much appreciated. I picked up the Nikon AF-S 60 f2.8 ED Micro for $590.00 & the Nikon 10-24mm f3.5/4.5 AF-S DX for $1000.00. Canadian. No it's time to try them out before I leave for the islands.</p>