Hi all,

Unfortunately Nikon don't have the prized mp-e, so that's out of the list.

I currently have a Tamron 90mm, however I'm looking at either a Nikon 105mm or a Nikon 60mm. Reasons are I am trying to get my kit to all Nikon glass... no particular reason apart from that is what I want to do.

Now... I am trying to get my head around DOF. Obviously I know how shallow DOF is in the macro world, however I'm trying to figure out if there is a greater DOF in either of the above lenses? Working distance has never been an issue for me, so I'm not too concerned about getting close to subjects.

Any input at all would be appreciated. I seem to be going around and around in circles at the moment.

Hope this makes sense.

To any reasonable approximation, DOF in macro is just dependant on the magnification and aperture and not the glass/method/lens of producing that magnification.
One slight caveat is that shorter macro lenses will give more recognisable backgrounds (due to the wider FOV behind the subject) and so can be more recognisable even though they are OOF.
I actually don't think you will really gain any advantage changing your lens to the ones suggested apart perhaps from the image stabilsiation of the 105mm at lower magnifications.
You may be better off thinking about extension tube set (eg Kenko) for the Tamron to take you to 2:1 magnification.
Brian v.

For macro work that 60 mm f 2 Tamron is awfully tempting.

Thanks guys. Tubes purchased... will give them a go when they arrive.

I'll vote for the Nikon 60mm (if it's a true 1:1 lens and not like Canon's lame 50mm 1:2) for the one reason: With that set of tubes you'll get more magnification out of the 60mm lens than a 90mm lens...