Which Nikon macro lens, 60mm or 105mm?

Hi folks,

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for nature,
anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

The lenses are, of course:
- Nikon 60mm f/2.8D
- Nikon 105mm f/2.8D

I would have assumed that the 105mm would be better, because then I wouldn't
HAVE to get as close, but then I've heard that the 60mm is sharper.

Anyone?

Thanks in advance!
G

I would go the the 105/2.8. Because you get longer distance from the subject
to the lens. I have a 55/2.8 and a 200/4 .....and I use the 200/4 more than
the
55/2.8. Using the 105/2.8 at 2.8 you can make an even softer background than
with the 60/2.8. Optically the 105/2.8 is very good. The old AIS version was
very good also. So don't worry about the optical quality. I have seen many
exellent
pictures taken with the 105/2.8.

Max

"greg" skrev i en meddelelse
news:HBw_c.317692$J06.182957@pd7tw2no...
Hi folks,

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I
have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for
nature,
anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

The lenses are, of course:
- Nikon 60mm f/2.8D
- Nikon 105mm f/2.8D

I would have assumed that the 105mm would be better, because then I
wouldn't
HAVE to get as close, but then I've heard that the 60mm is sharper.

Anyone?

Thanks in advance!
G

I would go the the 105/2.8. Because you get longer distance from the subject
to the lens. I have a 55/2.8 and a 200/4 .....and I use the 200/4 more than
the
55/2.8. Using the 105/2.8 at 2.8 you can make an even softer background than
with the 60/2.8. Optically the 105/2.8 is very good. The old AIS version was
very good also. So don't worry about the optical quality. I have seen many
exellent
pictures taken with the 105/2.8.

Max

"greg" skrev i en meddelelse
news:HBw_c.317692$J06.182957@pd7tw2no...
Hi folks,

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I
have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for
nature,
anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

The lenses are, of course:
- Nikon 60mm f/2.8D
- Nikon 105mm f/2.8D

I would have assumed that the 105mm would be better, because then I
wouldn't
HAVE to get as close, but then I've heard that the 60mm is sharper.

Anyone?

Thanks in advance!
G

greg wrote:

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for nature,
anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

If money is no object, then also consider the 85 PC f/2.8 and especially
the 200 f/4.0. Both excellent lenses. Just use an extension tube on the
former, or a 4T closeup lens mounted backwards on the latter to get to 1:1.

greg wrote:

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for nature,
anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

If money is no object, then also consider the 85 PC f/2.8 and especially
the 200 f/4.0. Both excellent lenses. Just use an extension tube on the
former, or a 4T closeup lens mounted backwards on the latter to get to 1:1.

greg wrote:

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for nature,
anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

If money is no object, then also consider the 85 PC f/2.8 and especially
the 200 f/4.0. Both excellent lenses. Just use an extension tube on the
former, or a 4T closeup lens mounted backwards on the latter to get to 1:1.

Doug Payne wrote:
greg wrote:

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I
have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for
nature, anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

If money is no object, then also consider the 85 PC f/2.8 and especially
the 200 f/4.0. Both excellent lenses. Just use an extension tube on the
former, or a 4T closeup lens mounted backwards on the latter to get to
1:1.


I am not at all sure that the usual reproduction ratios like 1:1 are
meaningful for digital cameras. It might be more meaningful to state the
size of the subject that can be covered and of course this might change from
camera to camera.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Doug Payne wrote:
greg wrote:

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I
have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for
nature, anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

If money is no object, then also consider the 85 PC f/2.8 and especially
the 200 f/4.0. Both excellent lenses. Just use an extension tube on the
former, or a 4T closeup lens mounted backwards on the latter to get to
1:1.


I am not at all sure that the usual reproduction ratios like 1:1 are
meaningful for digital cameras. It might be more meaningful to state the
size of the subject that can be covered and of course this might change from
camera to camera.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Doug Payne wrote:
greg wrote:

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I
have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for
nature, anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

If money is no object, then also consider the 85 PC f/2.8 and especially
the 200 f/4.0. Both excellent lenses. Just use an extension tube on the
former, or a 4T closeup lens mounted backwards on the latter to get to
1:1.


I am not at all sure that the usual reproduction ratios like 1:1 are
meaningful for digital cameras. It might be more meaningful to state the
size of the subject that can be covered and of course this might change from
camera to camera.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

greg wrote:

Hi folks,

I'm trying to decide which Nikon macro lens I should get for my D70. I have
no SPECIFIC plans for the lens; I just want to have a good macro for nature,
anything. Please ignore the cost of the lenses.

The lenses are, of course:
- Nikon 60mm f/2.8D
- Nikon 105mm f/2.8D

I would have assumed that the 105mm would be better, because then I wouldn't
HAVE to get as close, but then I've heard that the 60mm is sharper.

At this level, having manoeuvering room is more important than
some small amount of sharpness difference that you will never
perceive in a side by side of a real subject.

I'd go with the 105 or a

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or (90mm f/2.5 which is a hair less sharp).
These are both discontinued lenses and both are sharper than the
Nikkor 105 ... and the f/2.8 has an a stellar rep as a portrait
lens as well...(except that on a D70 it would be a bit "long" for
portraits), otherwise very win-win.

They have a new "digital" lens as well:
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/90mm.asp no performance data to
date that I can see ... but it is likely at least as good as the
f/2.8 that they claim it is based on. Again they tout the
portrait usefulness of it, but at 135 mm (Eff. FL on D70) it's a
bit on the long end for portraits ... need a lot of room.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--