Nikon 60mm F2.8 AF-D VS. Nikon 28-105mm AF-D

[soheilkh]

 

It might sound crazy to compare a prime lens with a zoom lens. I'm just wondering if any of you have experience with both lenses so can tell me how different the lenses (at the same focal length) are. I'm wondering if the sharpness, vignetting and distortion are different or not. (I know the 60mm lens is one stop faster at the same focal length)

Edited March 24, 2023 by soheilkh

[mike_halliwell]

4 hours ago, soheilkh said:

I'm wondering if the sharpness, vignetting and distortion are different or not

Yes.

The macro wins all three.

There should be a distortion free spot somewhere in the zoom range as it goes from barrel at 28mm to pincushion at 105mm........probably!

[CvhKaar]

I think it is good to also mention a target/purpose for which you want to use the lens when comparing..

A macro lens like the AF-D 60mm is designed for use at shorter distances while a zoom lens like the mentioned 28-105 AF-D is designed for use at farther away subject ( and holiday snapshots..). This makes for a very different image profile depending on how far the subject is away... 

[erichsande]

The macro feature on the 28-105 is handy but it doesn't really achieve 1:2 as advertised.  I bought the 28-105 back in 1999 and eventually got an AF-D 105 - compared them at 1:2 and the zoom fell short.

The Nikon 60 still fetches a fairly high price used - there has already been mention of going longer for more working room.  I sold my 105 a while back but wanted a macro again recently and Tamron's old 90mm screw-drive AF macros are as good as Nikon in my opinion and run under $150 on eBay.

[mike_halliwell]

2 hours ago, erichsande said:

there has already been mention of going longer for more working room.

Interestingly, there has never even been a rumour of a 200mm Z Macro.....☹️

[keith_burdett]

Fwiw I think the image quality/rendering of the 60afs g macro is absolutely lovely. I've owned all 3 lenses, the 60d not since film though. The 28-105 is a great walk around on a lower MP body with good close(er) focus capability.  I often use mine as a bit of a beater on my d700 when I'm out doing forestry work or similar. With either 60 you have to zoom with your feet but image quality is better esp (I believe) with the g version. At 1:1 it's very difficult to handhold and working distance is very minimal to the extent the lens hood needs to be removed!

[keith_burdett]

Btw my preferred macro choice is the sigma 150 mm non os. But of course it depends what you shoot...

Edited March 25, 2023 by keith_burdett
Typo

[mike_halliwell]

8 hours ago, keith_burdett said:

macro choice is the sigma 150 mm non os

I gotta say, i prefer the OS version.

It needed re-chipping for Nikon Z, but it's stellar!

[keith_burdett]

13 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

I gotta say, i prefer the OS version.

It needed re-chipping for Nikon Z, but it's stellar!

To be fair, I've not tried the os. I meant the non os was my favourite out of the macros I have used (also including sigma 180mm for Nikon and, years ago, sigma 50mm and 90mm tamron adaptall for contax). 

I would like the benefit of the os system but not at the expense of extra weight and £££. I'm not sure the optics are much different? Complete lack of chromatic aberration is one of the great things about that non os version. I certainly don't imagine the newer version is any worse in that respect...