Which Nikon macro lens, 60mm or 105mm?

"greg" wrote in message
news:HBw_c.317692$J06.182957@pd7tw2no...

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?

Either of these lenses can easily outresolve the sensor on your D70.
They can also outresolve most commercially available 35mm film.

A lack of sharpness is frequently a problem with macrophotography, though,
as physics work against it. Not only is depth of field extremely limited,
but any vibration, including mirror slap, works against you.

In order to get sufficient depth of field for a three dimensional objects,
you may need to stop down to the point where diffraction effects become
the controlling factor for sharpness rather than the glass.

Since both lenses have the same number of aperture blades, there's no
clear winner. If the 105mm gives you the working distance and focal
length you want, go with it.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

"greg" wrote in message
news:HBw_c.317692$J06.182957@pd7tw2no...

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?

Either of these lenses can easily outresolve the sensor on your D70.
They can also outresolve most commercially available 35mm film.

A lack of sharpness is frequently a problem with macrophotography, though,
as physics work against it. Not only is depth of field extremely limited,
but any vibration, including mirror slap, works against you.

In order to get sufficient depth of field for a three dimensional objects,
you may need to stop down to the point where diffraction effects become
the controlling factor for sharpness rather than the glass.

Since both lenses have the same number of aperture blades, there's no
clear winner. If the 105mm gives you the working distance and focal
length you want, go with it.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

wrote in message
...
Archived from "greg" on Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:28:23 GMT:

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.

Thanks in advance!

I have both lenses. Both are fine glass. I rarely use the 60mm anymore. I
will be giving it away to a friend of mine.


Geez, how come I don't have friends who just GIVE me lenses? ;-)

wrote in message
...
Archived from "greg" on Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:28:23 GMT:

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.

Thanks in advance!

I have both lenses. Both are fine glass. I rarely use the 60mm anymore. I
will be giving it away to a friend of mine.


Geez, how come I don't have friends who just GIVE me lenses? ;-)

"columbotrek" wrote in message
...
A lens like the 60 or 105 macro feature flat field focusing which is
great for flat things like stamps and coins. For natural objects a true
macro is not so important. A regular lens with extension rings or
bellows may be all that you need. You loose metering that way though.
For living critters, you will have better luck the further away you can
be. Many have a comfort zone boundary and the 60mm puts the glass in to
close. For other things it does not matter much unless you are so close
as to interfere with your lighting. Another thing to considered is
glass with dual purpose. A 60mm f/2.8 is very close to the faster 50mm
f/1.4 and is more expensive. Where as in the 105mm, your other choices
are much closer to the 105's f/2.8 speed so no compromise there. The 105
is a very sharp lens. I use mine for more than macro work.


Thanks everyone! For several reasons that people have raised in this thread
(especially the distance-to-object factor and the fact that I already have a
50mm 1.8 lens), I think I'll go for the 105.

G

"columbotrek" wrote in message
...
A lens like the 60 or 105 macro feature flat field focusing which is
great for flat things like stamps and coins. For natural objects a true
macro is not so important. A regular lens with extension rings or
bellows may be all that you need. You loose metering that way though.
For living critters, you will have better luck the further away you can
be. Many have a comfort zone boundary and the 60mm puts the glass in to
close. For other things it does not matter much unless you are so close
as to interfere with your lighting. Another thing to considered is
glass with dual purpose. A 60mm f/2.8 is very close to the faster 50mm
f/1.4 and is more expensive. Where as in the 105mm, your other choices
are much closer to the 105's f/2.8 speed so no compromise there. The 105
is a very sharp lens. I use mine for more than macro work.


Thanks everyone! For several reasons that people have raised in this thread
(especially the distance-to-object factor and the fact that I already have a
50mm 1.8 lens), I think I'll go for the 105.

G