Nikon 60mm Micro vs. 105mm Micro

[hoffsc1]

Does anyone have an opionion on which is a better lens to have? It

would be my first macro lens. The 60 focuses down to 8 inchs while

the 105 focuses down to 12". Which is trully the better macro

lens?

[douglas_green1]

I like the Tamron 90mm F2.5 SP Manual Focus macro. I've owned both the 60mm Nikkor AF D and the 105mm f4 Micro-Nikkor AIS. The Tamron is the best of the 3. It is optically at least as good as the 105 Micro, and the extra stop makes it quite useful as a general purpose lens as well. Build quality is at the same level as Nikkor AI lenses.

 

Plus, You can get one for well under $200 second hand.

[ken_schroeder]

I like the drawing of the longer lens.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

They both focus down to 1:1, which is often the first attribute you look for in a macro lens (how big will it make small things). The 105 just does it from farther away. Most people appreciate this longer 'working distance' in the field, where you're less likely to chase a bug away, and you're less likely to cast your own shadow on your subject. A 50/55/60mm macro lens is a better choice if you're copying photos or small objects on a copy stand with dedicated lights.

 

I have never owned a 50/55/60 macro lens, I own an old Vivitar 90mm and a Nikon 105 micro. Of the people I know who prefer the shorter focal length macro, they are getting 'double duty' out of it as a general purpose lens of normal focal length. In the 90/105 range, I get double duty as a portrait lens.

 

It's pretty common for people who are really interested in macro to work their way up to the longest focal length macro lens they can afford (nirvana for most is the 200mm micro). A few really dedicated macro-heads have one of each of the common macro focal lengths and use them to achieve different background 'looks'.

[steve_chan5]

I've got the Lester Dine (Kiron) 105/2.8 and for macro work, I think it is a pretty convenient focal length. There is a picture of a fly's head in my macro folder. That wasn't done with 105mm, it was the 105mm plus a 2x macro teleconverter.

 

Trying to get the equivalent shot with a 60mm lens would probably result in squashing the bug against my lens - if it didn't get scared off long before I got within focusing range.

 

By the way, the Lester Dine or Kiron lenses are very nice - and they are inexpensive as well.

 

Steve

[larry n.]

Take a look at a good book before you buy--John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide is a good one because he uses Nikon lenses and asks the same question you ask.

 

Most people would say that, for macro, the 105 is better than the 60, and the 200 is better than the 105. As Todd hinted above, the fact that the 105 only focuses to 12" is actually an advantage over the 60 because it gives you more working distance at the maximum magnification of these two lenses (1:1). The 200 gives you even greater working distance at the same magnification.

 

Personally, I use a 75-150/3.5 MF zoom with a closeup lens (Nikon 4T). It doesn't quite go to 1:1, but the zoom feature is phenomenally usefull in macro.

[hugh_sakols]

I enjoy photographing flowers and insects. I started with a Nikon 105 micro

which is a great all purpose lense. Then I started using my 300mm lens with

80mm of extension (see John Shaws book). Now I mostly use a Nikon MF

200 f4 which I bought almost new on e-bay for $450.00. I still use the 105

because it is compact and sharp. Many times I use the 105 instead of my 70-

210 zoom. If your interested in nature photography life will be much easier

with the 105 and beyond because of the longer reach and narrower field of

view. OTOH, the 60mm will also make a great all purpose lens. Read John

Shaws book on close-ups.

[david_h._hartman]

I prefer 55mm or 60mm Micros and 180mm to 300mm lenses with

tubes. If you want to photograph plants and flowers an AF 60/2.8D

or AF 70~180/4.5~5.6D ED would be good choices. If you want to

photograph shy creatures an AF 200/4.0D ED Micro or an AF-S 300/4.0D

ED-IF with AF tubes from Kenko might fill the bill. Most of these

lenses are quite pricey.<br>

<br>

I find the AF 105/2.8 has too little free working distance for my

tastes. The older 105/2.8 AIS Micro has about 20~25mm more and its

not really enough for many subjects either.<br>

<br>

I lost all interest in the AF 105/2.8D Micro in seconds when I

first handled it. I racked it all the way out and tried to focus

but nothing came into focus. Then I tried focusing father away

but nothing came into focus. Then I moved close like I was using

a AF 60/2.8 and found the subject. The AF 105/2.8D loses a lot of

focal length when focusing closer. Ive read from a very

well reputed source that its only as 60mm at 1:1. The older

105/2.8 AIS is something like 88 at 1/2 life size.<br>

<br>

Depending on what you want to photograph and how serious you are

Id look at the AF 60/2.8D and the AF 200/4.0D ED Micros.

Also buy John Shaws book <u>Closeups In Nature</u> first.

It features Nikkor lenses of the mid 80s but the concepts

and techniques are all the same.<br>

<br>

In particular forget the focal length and pay attention to the

free working distance. The focal length of many of these lenses

is only valid for say 3~4m out to infinity. The distance from the

subject to the lens determines perspective not the numbers

engraved or painted on the lens. Also watch the focus distance.

It can be given in subject to lens or subject to film distance.

The later is worthless for determining how useful a lens is for

various macro subjects. A lens with greater subject to film

distance can have less free working distance if the lens is long

in length.<br>

<br>

A longer lens (free working distance and effective focal length)

allows selection of the background and helps avoid photos with an

out of focus sky which almost always looks bad. A shorter lens

gives a more intimate view of the subject. In that case youre

probably in so close the sky doesnt show anyway.<br>

<br>

I really recommend reading John Shaws book and then look at

the perspective lenses first hand. A quick look at Johns

site show his primary macro is the new 200/4.0 sometimes used

with a 5T or 6T close up lens. He also used as 105/2.8 with a

tube and 2x converter for high magnification. My guess is this is

the newer AF 105/2.8D as image quality probably holds up better

with the 2x than the older 105/2.8 AIS.<br>

<br>

Sorry about rambling. Im just throwing out ideas. Think

about what subjects you want to photograph, read some better

books on the subject and look at the lenses and then decide.<br>

<br>

Hope this helps,

[ilkka_nissila]

Just to provide another data point, I like the 105 mm AF Micro Nikkor and have no complaints about it's working distance. 20 mm isn't much of a difference.

[greg_barnett]

A lot has been said but I can give a few point from someone who owns and uses a lot the AF 55 micro which I believe the 60mm replaced. I love using this lense but the working distance is short and I would really prefer the 105 and even more so the 200. I prefer these for working distance as well as the different background effects the longer lens creates. But that said I haven't used either of them so I don't know if in owning one of the longer ones I would stop using my 55 or still use it occasionally.

 

good luck!

[cham_saranasuriya]

Hi,

 

One thing to emphasize is that the working distance is calculated from the film plane so when the lens is mounted to the camera there is not much "effective" working distance with 50 or 105 lenses if you require 1:1 magnification. This is quite important if you intend to photograpgh live creatures for example.

 

When I was doing the research for my first Micro lens initially I thought of getting a 50 or 105 as well then decided to by the 200/f4 instead and I am very happy with that decision although I had to spend a lot extra!!. I decided that because of mainly the working distance but also the tripod collar - so easily changed to verticle format and the feel of it. I agree with John Shaw's books they are great. Also look at Bjorn Rorslett's site for more information. He rates 200mm lens as 5/5. The adavantage of 50/105 lenses is that they are portable to carry.

[cham_saranasuriya]

The other advantage of the 200mm/f4 lens is because of the focal length and the depth of field characteristics it isolates the subject from the background quite nicely.

[ilkka_nissila]

Working distance is the distance between the subject and the front of the lens, NOT the film plane.

[dan_fromm2]

Slightly off target, because my lenses are all manual focus. I have 55/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4 AIS MicroNikkors. For me, the most useful all 'round is the 105. Sharper than the 200, more easily used with flash than the 200 because of shorter working distance. Much better working distance than the 55. That said, each has its place.

[david_h._hartman]

Free working distance is from the subject to the lip of the

filer threads. Sometimes when quoted by the manufacture it may be

to the front element but this is not quite accurate. It is not

from the subject to the film plain. The terms "free working

distance" and "working distance" may sound similar

but at macro distance they can be worlds apart, e.g. if one lens

has 12" working distance and another has only 6" that

might sound like you get 6" more "free working distance"

but if the first lens is 3.5" longer you only will get 2.5"

more free working distance. If both free working distance are

within your subject comfort zone the difference does not matter.<br>

<br>

At 500mm a leaf hopper will side step to the back of a twig. At 1/3

life size with a 200/4.0 AIS a red skimmer will take flight if

your finger twitches. Dragon flies have 360° vision. They can

probably see there own ass, well not quite. If you dont

breath on them bees will often ignore you and can be photographed

with a 55/3.5. A jumping spider will often side step just out of

focus with a 55.<br>

<br>

Sorry I could not find my Nikon reference the free working

distance before my last post. Here thanks to PHOTO.NET and Google.com

are free working distance from a previous post<br>

<br>

<em>Here are some *free working distances, some Nikons,

some (mine).<br>

<br>

non-AI 55/3.5 (56mm) at 1x, (111mm) at 0.5x (vintage 1965 Comp.

Ap.)<br>

AIS 55/2.8, 56mm(55mm) at 1x, 112mm(112mm) at 0.5x<br>

AF 60/2.8, 72.9mm(73mm) at 1x, (124mm) at 0.5x<br>

AF 105/2.8, 136mm at 1x<br>

AIS 105/2.8, **182mm(172mm) at 1x, 247mm(243mm) at 0.5x<br>

AI 200/4.0, (346mm) at 1x, 492mm(492mm) at 0.5x, (1x using tubes)<br>

AI 300/4.5 ED-IF (970mm) at 0.5x w/ PN-11 and PK-13 tubes<br>

<br>

*I define the free working distance as the distance from the lip

of the lens to the subject. **Perhaps Nikon's is to the front

element here. Please don't hold me to the millimeter.<br>

</em><br>

Have a look at Roland Vinks post regarding focal length at

scale in the same thread<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0054Q2"

target="_new"><u>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0054Q2</u></a><br>

<br>

There is a lot of good advice there from others also. There is no

one best macro lens. Good luck deciding.

[alex_lofquist]

I own both lenses. Qualitywise they are about the same. I like the 60 for copying signs and maps at less than 1:1 for use in slide shows, etc. I prefer the 105 for nature macros for many of the reasons previously mentioned. The 105 is particularly useful with the 3T and 4T supplementary lenses to give better than 1:1 reproduction ratios.

[hique]

"Working distance is the distance between the subject and the front of the lens, NOT the film plane"

 

But that is not what they advertise!

 

My tamron 90mm should have 20cm of working distance, but...NO WAY. That's from the film plane. The Nikon 105mm uses similar "specs" fooling.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"But that is not what they advertise!" --Marcio

Santos<br>

</em><br>

So true! Advertising is usually a bunch of lies and half truths.

They may even use the term "working distance" to

confuse or maybe the people who wrote the ad copy just dont

have a clue about macro lenses and there use. Any way someone

should stop the deception (or mistake) before it goes to press.<br>

<br>

Somewhere I have a brochure from Nikon that list the free working

distances but Ive misplaced it. It has a list of free

working distances that are quite accurate.

[alex_lofquist]

I was looking for some measurements of free working distance for the Micro Nikkors, but instead came up with closest Reproduction Ratios for the 105mm when used with auxilliary close-up lenses. These are actual measurements that I made with my F4S.

 

The 105mm with 3T (1.5D) alone will give up to 1.2X with a little reduction in working distance.

 

With 4T (2.9D) up to 1.44X.

 

With both 3T and 4T (4.4D) up to 1.56X.

 

Adding a 25mm extension tube to the lens, and both 3T and 4T you will get 2.0X!

 

This makes the 105mm a pretty flexible system!

[ilkka_nissila]

I cannot find any place in the Nikon advertising where they'd incorrectly state the working distance of the micro-nikkors. They only give the distance between subject and film, but there is no error in this. No mention of "working distance". I recall seeing the working distances given in a hardcopy brochure, but I don't have it here. They also specifically pointed out that the working distance may be the more important parameter. Where has Nikon advertised working distances incorrectly?

[constance_cook]

In Volume 6 of the Nikon Full Line Product Guide they give the working distances as:

 

60 f/2.8D AF = "close-up to approximately 8.6 inches"

 

105 f/2.8D AF = "close-up to approximately 12.4 inches"

 

200 f/4D ED-IF = "close-up to approximately 20.0 inches"

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"In Volume 6 of the Nikon Full Line Product Guide

they give the working distances as:" --constance cook<br>

</em><br>

The figures in Constance post are apparently subject to film

plane distances. To make any practical use you have to subtract

the back focus distance (46.5mm) and the length of the lens from

the bayonet to the rim of the filter threads. For example there

is no way the AF 60/2.8D has 218mm of free working distance at 1:1.

<br>

<br>

Nikon figures for "Working distance" in the Vol. 6

guide...<br>

<br>

AF 60/2.8D ............................ 90.4mm ???? (cant

be 1:1)<br>

PC 85/2.8D ............................ Not listed<br>

AF 105/2.8D ......................... 136mm (must be 1:1)<br>

AF 200/4.0D ED-IF .............. 260mm (must be 1:1)<br>

<br>

Note that the figure for the new 200/4.0 macro is considerably

less than the old one. The new lens focuses to 1:1 the old only

to 1:2. The shorter free working distance is to be expected in an

IF design. Im pretty sure 260mm is free working distance.

260mm is quite generous for many situations. Id love to

have that lens.<br>

<br>

The Nikon Full Line Product Guide is so sloppy Nikon should be

ashamed of it. Im no proofreader as shown by all the errors

I post but I have an excuse, Im dyslexic. Nikon has the

money to hire proper proofreaders but they apparently dont

care.

[ilkka_nissila]

Okay, I don't have that catalog. The ones that I have as well as the most up to date of them (the one at www.nikon.co.jp) have the correct terminology. And David, the 60 mm AF Micro-Nikkor extends when focusing, so at 1:1 the working distance is about 75 mm if your 46.5 mm figure is correct. No, it's not enough in many situations but then again I rarely if ever have any use for going beyond 1:2, and in that case the 60 mm is fine for most still subjects. It has excellent optical quality at close-up distances.

[alex_lofquist]

I saw a bumper sticker saying: DAM-Mothers Against Dyslexia

[dougwebb]

I have and use the 105. For nature work, I like the fact that you have a little greater working distance, but mostly I like the fact that there is less to worry about in terms of distracting elements appearing in the background. I sometimes find that I need to use a 1.4 or 2x extender to narrow the background with the 105 so that I can obtain a cleaner composition. The 200 would be nice but it's quite a bit more expensive. I sometimes find that it isn't possible to get my tripod close enough to the subject with a shorter working distance. I don't know what you are using the lens for but the 105 is not flat field and I believe the 60 is, so the 60 would probably be better for copy work. Good luck.

Doug