I am intending on buying a Nikkor micro lens and am not sure which one I should get. Between the new 60mm and 105mm VR micro lenses what is the real difference of one over the other?
I have never used a micro lens before and as far as I can tell they both give the same level of magnification.
The 105mm VR cost more but does that actually mean it is better? I would appreciate any help anyone can give me. Thanks.
You might need to do a little reading first to help narrow it down. John Shaw has many wonderful books about macro photography. You can read a ton of reviews but you will find that both lenses you mentioned are optically fantastic. Since both lenses go to 1:1 you need to decide on the comfort distance between you and subject, the longer the focal distance of the lens the more working distance you will be given. For easily scared insects the 105mm might be preferred and for flowers or copy work the 60mm might be preferable.
In addition to the advice that Jack gave you I would like to point out that when it comes to macro/micro lenses all manufacturers make good lenses. Don’t forget the Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm, Sigma 105 mm, Sigma 150mm, Tamron 180mm, Sigma 70mm and of course the new Zeiss lenses. Also don't forget that Nikon has made a lot of excellent AIS lenses in the past which are manual focus but may require an extension tube to go 1:1.
A few points:
-Macro is done on a tripod 90% of the time - do you have a good tripod?
-Auto focus is generally not very useful while shooting macro so if you are buying a dedicated macro lens (no other uses) manual focus lenses may be the way to go.
-VR is totally useless while doing macro and so the VR on the Nikkor 105mm is a gimmick when it comes to macro shots, but useful for other shooting such as portrait.
-Check websites such as photozone for lens reviews and note that other manufactures have lenses with great IQ as well.
-If you have never done this before don't be afraid to buy a used lens at KEH.com just to keep your cost down while you see if you really like it. If you go this route I would look for a used Tamron 90mm - fantastic lens.
- Extension tubes can be purchased from Nikon or Kenko which allow you to do macro with non-macro lenses.
- Canon and hoya (and others) makes a nice diopter lenses that can be screwed on the front of a non-macro lens yielding macro capability. This is an inexpensive way to go but no nearly as satisfying as just using a macro lens.
If your intention is to do macro only with this lens, then you might want to think about getting an older AIS 55mm f/2.8 or f/3.5... Although it goes to 1:2 max...
I use the 105 pretty much because I am not as close to the flower/bug/or whatever I am shooting. This also makes using flash a bit easier......
As pointed out above, there have been many good macro lenses, both by Nikon and other mfrs. Boils down to what works for you and fits your economic situation.
Thanks people. From this I gather the main difference is the working distance, and I think I may prefer the 105 VR more this way. When taking photos of animals such as snakes I feel a bit larger working distance may be preferred.
I do have a tripod and work from it nearly all of the time. I have considered other brand macro lenses but just as personal preference I like the Nikkor's a little more, although the Zeiss do look very nice.
Thanks everyone for the advice.
I have started thinking a bit about the Zeiss, I don't know if you can get them here in Australia though? If auto focus is useless then I may as well get the best glass. The Sigma 70 looks good to, for some strange reason I keep looking at the Nikkor's though.
panos.v wrote:
If I was shooting snakes, I'd either be getting either of the Sigma 150, Tamron 180 or Nikon 200!
Depending on what snakes I was shooting, I might prefer the 600 f/4 with a 2X TC!
Seriously, the longer lenses are generally better for that type of photography. Which one is up to the user's preference and budget. I personally use the older non-AF-S version of the 105 and am pleased with it. Don't overlook third party lenses, such as the Sigma and Tamron lenses mentioned in this post. You can get even more reach for less money going that route.
I don't think any macro lens is appropriate for snakes. Most snakes can strike from 3-5' away and are lightning fast. Unless you're very familiar with them it's best to stay away altogether. If you're planning to go closer to a snake then 10', you really need to wear a pair of snake-proof chaps, because they often strike above the knee. Keep in mind that non-poisonous snakes also bite to defend themselves. Their bite can be very painful and infection is likely. So even one of those will end your shooting day.
Edited on May 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM
May 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
panos.v wrote:
If I was shooting snakes, I'd either be getting either of the Sigma 150, Tamron 180 or Nikon 200!
The Nikon 200! It has the longes working distance of all of them.
If I was shooting black widdow spiders, it would most likely be my 70-200 + 1.7TC + 36mm tube + canon 500D ... with that unseamly combo I get 2:1 mag (yes, 2X life size) at a working distance of 13" fron the Canon 500D. Image quality is surprisingly good!
As for the OP's original question, it's all a matter of working distance @ 1:1 as well as size, weight and cost.
Right on Andre. You can actually do even better with the Sigma 70-200mm DG Macro which has 1:3.5 macro capabilities. Throw on a Sigma 1.4X TC and a Canon 500D and you've got a good set-up. IQ-wise, I don't know if anyone has compared the Sigma vs Nikon 70-200s w/ Canon 500D. Stopped down I think the Sigma is an excellent value at probably $1000 less than the equivalent Nikon 70-200mm set-up. Of course a true macro prime is best but if one needs to spread out money wisely the Sigma 70-200mm is not too shabby.
We only have venomous snakes here, the most common is the eastern brown which is supposed to have some of the most toxic venom in the world. Taking that into account snakes really don't try striking at you unless you provoke them, working distance is not a huge issue.
I know that the Nikon 200 Micro is a sharp lens, but considering how great my Sigma 180 was, I would never recommend the Nikkor. The Sigma has HSM (so it focuses faster), has a slightly larger aperture, and is a fraction of the cost.
Oh, and it also works great with the Sigma 1.4x converter for 252 mm focal length and 1.4:1 magnification (yes, greater than 1:1).
