Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 7, 2011, 6:12 AM   #1
Dig
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 98
Default 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED vs 60mm f/2.8G ED

If you were going to buy one of these lenses for macro work which would you choose?

Obviously there is a significant price difference.

Any help appreciated
Thanks
Dig is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 7, 2011, 7:43 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

It depends on what you want to shoot. If you want to take photos of animate subjects that might spook if you get too close, then the 105 will give you more working room and you'd be less likely to block your own light. But if you want to photograph inanimate objects in a Soft Light Box, then you can use a shorter focal length and save some money.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2011, 3:14 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default

I tend to fall in the camp of the 105, with animate objects and appreciating the distance. The 60 is just too close. Yes, it is expensive. Whoever, with a price compromise would strongly consider the Tamron 90 2.8. The advantages of the 105 with the price of the 60.
tizeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2011, 6:52 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The Tamron 90/2.8 is a fine lens, but it's not quite as good as the Nikon 105/2.8, plus the Nikon 105/2.8 is stabilized for "macro" shooting (though the closer you get to 1:1 macro, the less useful stabilization is.)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2011, 9:44 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The Tamron 90/2.8 is a fine lens, but it's not quite as good as the Nikon 105/2.8, plus the Nikon 105/2.8 is stabilized for "macro" shooting (though the closer you get to 1:1 macro, the less useful stabilization is.)
I agree, the Nikon 105 is probably THE STANDARD others are compared to. An excellent lens. I brough tup the Tamron 90 because, while a good lens in its own right, is priced at the level of the 60

I think Nikon 105 is the only one with stabilization. It definately waas the first. It's biggest advamtage of the VR is when using in a non-macro setting. However, due to the shifting lens of stabilization, it typically shoud ne deactivared when using a tripod - like uou do in macro, together with mirroe lockup and remore shutter release.
tizeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2011, 2:27 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Actually, in addition to the $960 105/2.8, Nikon has another stabilized macro lens: the $500 85mm f/3.5. Also, Sigma has the stabilized $1,100 150mm f/2.8 and the new stabilized 105mm f/2.8.

I agree that, for 1:1 macrophotography, you need a tripod, in which case you should disable stabilization. But for 1:3 or even 1:2 macro work, stabilization can be useful, especially if the subject won't wait around for you to set up your gear.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2011, 10:06 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dig View Post
If you were going to buy one of these lenses for macro work which would you choose?
Neither...

-> The Sigma macros outperform them both according to slrgear:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/30
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/351/cat/12

Actually the Sigma 70mm is the 'standard' lens used for all full-frame camera tests in most camera review, check out its blur index (over the Nikon):
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/964/cat/30
__________________
photos (ϕοτοσ), light
graphos (γραϕος), painting
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 4:24 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

There are no bad macro lenses. While some are better than others, they all run rings around typical prime lenses in most respects. Yes, the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro is often the standard by which all others are judged, but when shopping for a macro lens, it's important to pick a focal length that's appropriate for the subject. If you'll be shooting watch parts in a lightbox, a 50mm lens is a good choice, but if the subject is cobras and rattlesnakes, you might want to go with the Nikon 200mm f/4.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2011, 10:37 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
... If you'll be shooting watch parts in a lightbox, a 50mm lens is a good choice, but if the subject is cobras and rattlesnakes, you might want to go with the Nikon 200mm f/4.
I don't know I might still want a Sigma:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/180/cat/30

"The Competition
The Sigma 150mm f/2.8 competes in a tough arena, there are a lot of very high quality lenses in this focal length range on the market, but this Sigma seems to compete very strongly.
In the Canon line, its closest competitor is probably the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM, which we haven't tested as yet. Readers report this lens is very good optically, but very heavy and relatively slow to focus. It's also slower by about 2/3 of a stop, and sells for twice the cost of the Sigma.
In the Nikon lineup, we recently tested the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF, which proved to be an excellent lens, albeit not quite as prickly sharp as the Sigma 150, and with slightly higher CA and distortion numbers. The Nikon lens sells online for $100-200 more than the Sigma.
Nikon also makes a 200mm f/4 ED-IF AF that we haven't tested yet. Readers report that this lens is very sharp, but also heavy and somewhat slow to focus. It sells for more than twice the price of the Sigma 180 f/2.8."
__________________
photos (ϕοτοσ), light
graphos (γραϕος), painting
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:00 PM.