Nikon Micro Lenses

[ebius]

I'm finally ready to purchase a macro lens and was leaning towards one of these.

AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED

or

AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED.

I was wondering if anybody here has either or both of these lenses. Have you used one of them? Anyone have any thoughts or recommendations on which I should get?

 

[maroun.c]

Both will be great for tank shots with the 105 being a bit better for corals in the mid and back of the tank. for corals in the front the 60 mm could have an advatage as it's got a closer min focusing distance however you worry more about corals at longer distance if you definitely need a high mag ratio...
I would personally go for the 105 mm because its got VR which the 60 mm doesn't. VR will not be extreemly critical in macro as you will be mostly on tripod however for those non prepared shoots it might come in very handy.

 

[Logzor]

I have been reading reviews and doing research for months now. I ended up going with the tamron 90mm. This lens has gotten amazing reviews. It beats the $900 nikon 105 in most arenas.

The 60mm nikon just is not worth the $550.

Definitely check out the Tamron. Mine will arrive at my place today!!

 

[ebius]

I have looked at the Tamron. I decided against it because I have read that being made of plastic it has a "cheap" feel to it. I do like the images I have seen from it tho. I just like my lenses to feel nice and solid and worry I would be disappointed the the Tamron with that aspect.

 

[Logzor]

That is true from what I hear. Plastics are pretty strong these days, though.

I am more concerned with performance and price.

The feel of a solid lens is pretty nice. I suppose if you have the cash go with the 105. From what I hear the tamron blows it away in sharpness.

 

[maroun.c]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15443391#post15443391 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Logzor
That is true from what I hear. Plastics are pretty strong these days, though.

I am more concerned with performance and price.

The feel of a solid lens is pretty nice. I suppose if you have the cash go with the 105. From what I hear the tamron blows it away in sharpness.

Logzor, While the Tamron is an excellent lense It does not blow the 105.
The 60mm is totally worth 550, it is one of the sharpest lenses Nikon ever made.

ebius,
Nice and solid is really nice however these days many lenses are coming in plastic. some of them like the Tamron 90 or maybe the tamron 17-50 (and many others for sure) are worth using even if made of plastic. Comparing the 17-50 Tamron and Nikon 17-55 you might find a difference of around 1000 USD and yes there the image quality of the tamron is quite close (if not better as some state) to the Nikon and therefore the price difference is qite big however comparing the Tamron 90 to Nikon 105 VR you do find a difference of around 400 USD which the VR alone is enough to justify. Adding to that the build quality and the 15mm additional focal length which adds up to 22mm with the crop factor I would say price difference if one can afford it is justified.
Still yes the Tamron 90 mm is a great lense and I've seen excellent pics made with it.

 

[qfrisco]

I know this isn't one of your options, but may I suggest foregoing these newer AF-S lenses and just getting an older manual focus micro lens? I went with 1970's era 105mm F/4 Micro-Nikkor for $275. I bought this from a local used camera shop and effectively paid "retail" price, but you can get this lens for less online. Check adorama.com or keh.com.

The optical performance of this lens is legendary, and is known to be one of the sharpest micro lenses Nikon has ever made, and should do very well for reef photography. Owning a Nikon, you have the flexibility of using most any lens Nikon has produced in the last 40 years.

For reef macrophotography, I think you would prefer to manual focus anyway, so getting an AF-S might not be as useful as you'd think. Moreover, since you'll likely be on a tripod, the VR has minimal upside as well. Other things to keep in mind if you decide to go with one of these older lenses:

- the older lenses are non-CPU lenses and you will have to shoot all-manual, so you'd have to be comfortable with that.
- depending on which body you have (full frame or APS), you have to keep in mind the crop factor because the lenses were designed for 35mm cameras. If you have a full-frame body, then no worries. If you have a body with an APS-sized sensor (like I do), the effective focal length of the lens will be 1.6x what the lens is spec-ed for. All this means is you'll have to move the camera back a few more inches to fill the frame with the same amount of the subject.
- the particular lens I have will magnify up to 1:2, and not 1:1 life size. To do so, you'll need an extension tube. This is probably the one advantage the newer AF-S lenses have over the older micros (in addition to being one-stop faster). The new AF-S lenses support 1:1 out of the box.

But beyond all this, these older lenses will still produce amazing photos. I'm told the used prices for these lenses are actually going up as more and more professionals snap them up for use on their D-SLRs.

Not that the new AF-S micros are bad - they're excellent, but they're also much, much more expensive - with the 105mm AF-S listing at $899.

I also agree with the comments already made. I think the 105mm will have a working distance that will be more usable for taking shots of thing regardless of where they are in your tank.

 

[xtm]

Re: Nikon Micro Lenses

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15441992#post15441992 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ebius
I'm finally ready to purchase a macro lens and was leaning towards one of these.

AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED

or

AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED.

I was wondering if anybody here has either or both of these lenses. Have you used one of them? Anyone have any thoughts or recommendations on which I should get?

I've shot with the 105VR and I was blown by it - It's an amazing glass! If you have the money, don't even think twice and just buy it. The only thing I didn't like about it is: 1. It's a bit heavy... about the same weight as the 17-55 2.8 and 2. It's EXPENSIVE. Does it outperform the Tamron 90 in sharpness? I don't think so. I think they're about the same in that category.

Things that the 105VR has over the Tammy: Internal Focusing, resale value, nano coating, and VR, and construction. Then again, it costs twice as much.

The 105VR can't touch the Tammy when it comes to bokeh and value though

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15442321#post15442321 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ebius
I have looked at the Tamron. I decided against it because I have read that being made of plastic it has a "cheap" feel to it. I do like the images I have seen from it tho. I just like my lenses to feel nice and solid and worry I would be disappointed the the Tamron with that aspect.

You know what's funny? I thought about the SAME THING before I bought the Tamron. However for $350 I can't go wrong.. if it really feels like crap I can just return it. So I went ahead and ordered one and when the lens came I was totally surprised about the build quality! Trust me on this one.. it does NOT feel like plastic at all. I own pro glasses, and while it's not as solid as, say the 17-55, I'd say that I'm very impressed with the build quality. Never listen to people who have never used them!

But if you can afford the 105VR I say go for it.

 

[ebius]

Thanks for the great advise everyone!

XTM:
I glad I was able to hear from someone who has physically used both lenses. I think you just gave me the final little push i needed to go with the 105.

I have seen shots from both lenses and all I can say is wow! they both deliver amazing quality. I think I will be happier based on what I am reading with the nikkor 105.

 

[tyoberg]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15444624#post15444624 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by qfrisco

- depending on which body you have (full frame or APS), you have to keep in mind the crop factor because the lenses were designed for 35mm cameras. If you have a full-frame body, then no worries. If you have a body with an APS-sized sensor (like I do), the effective focal length of the lens will be 1.6x what the lens is spec-ed for. All this means is you'll have to move the camera back a few more inches to fill the frame with the same amount of the subject. [/B]

All lenses, even the DX ones, are listed in their 35mm film equivalent focal lengths.

One of the bonuses of this is that, having the DX sensor, you are using only the best part of the lens--the center.

 

[luisgo]

I did something similar to what qfrisco did. I purchased at ebay a Nikon AI-S 35mm film 105 macro lens f2.8 for $175.00.

It is all manual but with some playing with the mettering, manual focus and my Nikon D60 you can get very nice macros without a big expense.

Here are two shots with the lens.

 

[qfrisco]

@luisgo - very nice pics!!! I'm cringing as I got mine for $275 and it wasn't even an AI-S mount! I knew I was paying more than online as I was buying it from a local store, but still.

 

[qfrisco]

Here are some pics, by the way, from my 1970's era 105mm F/4 Micro-Nikkor manual focus on a D60.

All photos below have not been retouched except for setting the white balance and cropping in GIMP.

Dragonfly:

Rainbow Montipora Coral:

Yellow Millepora Coral:

 

[latazyo]

I would take a look at the sigma 150 2.8 macro

 

[JHemdal]

I REALLY like my Sigma 105mm F2.8 - I literally put my Nikon 60mm up on a shelf after I got it. The price was right, and it puts me at just the right distance for most of the shots I need to make for single fish ID images.

Jay

 

[qfrisco]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15488325#post15488325 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JHemdal
I REALLY like my Sigma 105mm F2.8 - I literally put my Nikon 60mm up on a shelf after I got it. The price was right, and it puts me at just the right distance for most of the shots I need to make for single fish ID images.

Jay

Yep - I agree. Focal length wise, I think 100-ishmm (either Tamron 90mm or Nikon 105mm) is ideal for our applications (tank photography). I think you'd have to be too close to the glass with a 60mm. Plus, if you decide to use some extension tubes in the future to get even more magnification, you'd run out of room with the 60mm.

 

[tyoberg]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15482800#post15482800 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by qfrisco
Here are some pics, by the way, from my 1970's era 105mm F/4 Micro-Nikkor manual focus on a D60.

All photos below have not been retouched except for setting the white balance and cropping in GIMP.

Nice. You get props for non-metering goodness.

If you're not a member, check the
No metering lenses on Nikon DSLRs group on Flickr.

 

[tyoberg]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15480130#post15480130 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by luisgo
I did something similar to what qfrisco did. I purchased at ebay a Nikon AI-S 35mm film 105 macro lens f2.8 for $175.00.

It is all manual but with some playing with the mettering, manual focus and my Nikon D60 you can get very nice macros without a big expense.

Here are two shots with the lens.

I think the playing around with the rings is fun (and pretty easy after about 5 min of tinkering). Nice shots!

 

[qfrisco]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15491430#post15491430 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tyoberg
Nice. You get props for non-metering goodness.

Heh - hidden behind the scenes are the 4-5 (or more) test shots I took, chimping and checking the histogram just to get the exposure settings just right. One of the first things you learn when going full manual is to take test shots right away, to get an idea of the rough exposure settings so you're not left completely unprepared when something picture-worthy comes up!