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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 15, 2006, 10:04 PM   #1
Member
 
billybobbovine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 90
Default

I am loooking to buy either both or one of these lenses. would buying both be repetative at all? beised sthe extra ligth of the 50 is there reallly any advantage to buying both? or would ibe better off buying a 105 macro plus the 50? thanks
billybobbovine is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 16, 2006, 12:14 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

They are different lenses. The macro is going to focus a lot slower, and takes some getting hang of to focus manually. The 50 is much faster, and better suited for general use. If you do a lot of macro, then I would get both. If you're working with skittish creatures or need the extra reach, the 105 macro would be the better choice. Otherwise, I think the 60 will work for you. Because of price and performance, everyone should own the 50mm.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2006, 8:34 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

billybobbovine wrote:
Quote:
I am loooking to buy either both or one of these lenses. would buying both be repetative at all? beised sthe extra ligth of the 50 is there reallly any advantage to buying both? or would ibe better off buying a 105 macro plus the 50? thanks
I think you should answer yourself what you want to do with your camera. The main reason SLR are very popular is because it will work with lenses with any focal lengths for different requirements.

I had a MicroNikkor 60mm on my D50 most of the time and very happy. Never want to switch the lens. I can take portrait with it, I can take macro or even land scape with it. Focusing is quite fast. Zooming is very smooth.

What can you do if you see a beautiful fly but you do not have the Micro 60mm on your D50?




Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2006, 10:01 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 89
Default

Nice shot ruchai! Just a doubt, is it possible to take Portraits and other sort och photos with a micro lens? Or it is only meant to take close up photos? I think it is called micro as you can get more closer to the subject. I have never used such lenses that's why I am asking this.




ruchai wrote:
Quote:
I think you should answer yourself what you want to do with your camera. The main reason SLR are very popular is because it will work with lenses with any focal lengths for different requirements.

I had a MicroNikkor 60mm on my D50 most of the time and very happy. Never want to switch the lens. I can take portrait with it, I can take macro or even land scape with it. Focusing is quite fast. Zooming is very smooth.

What can you do if you see a beautiful fly but you do not have the Micro 60mm on your D50?

Swedson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2006, 3:09 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

It is possible. However micro(macro) lenses tend to be very sharp, and are not flattering when used at a typical portrait distance. They tend to show blemishes, skin pores, etc in great detail.You've seen the detail they capture in close-ups...they capture the same detail in portraits!!! Typically portraits should be a little softer to minimize these blemishes. One trick is to rub some petroleum jelly on a uv filter attached to the lens, or stretch a nylon sock over the front of the lens to create a diffusion effect. Micro lenses also will be harder to focus, as the focus throw is different from a normal lens.

Micro lenses are great, but I don't think they are well suited for general photography. Prime lenses in general i think are becoming less and less useful as the quality of zoom lenses is getting better and better. In terms of convenience, nothing beats a good zoom lens.

I'm not sure what ruchai is referring to when he says zooming is smooth on his 60mm micro.....it too is a prime lens and only works at one focal length. The only way to zoom these lenses is with your feet....you have to get closer:-)!!!!!
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2006, 7:02 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

What I meant was focussing not zooming.:blah:I use 80-400VR for birds most of the time. To me the 60mm macro focussing is very smooth compare with the 80-400.

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
It is possible. However micro(macro) lenses tend to be very sharp, and are not flattering when used at a typical portrait distance. They tend to show blemishes, skin pores, etc in great detail.You've seen the detail they capture in close-ups...they capture the same detail in portraits!!! Typically portraits should be a little softer to minimize these blemishes. One trick is to rub some petroleum jelly on a uv filter attached to the lens, or stretch a nylon sock over the front of the lens to create a diffusion effect. Micro lenses also will be harder to focus, as the focus throw is different from a normal lens.

Micro lenses are great, but I don't think they are well suited for general photography. Prime lenses in general i think are becoming less and less useful as the quality of zoom lenses is getting better and better. In terms of convenience, nothing beats a good zoom lens.

I'm not sure what ruchai is referring to when he says zooming is smooth on his 60mm micro.....it too is a prime lens and only works at one focal length. The only way to zoom these lenses is with your feet....you have to get closer:-)!!!!!
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2006, 7:26 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

ruchai wrote:
Quote:
What I meant was focussing not zooming.:blah:I use 80-400VR for birds most of the time. To me the 60mm macro focussing is very smooth compare with the 80-400
That I can agree with:lol:!! I'd love to have the 80-400, but its a bit out of my price range. I know its a beast of a lens.

I wish i had the 60mm macro as well....I've got the 105 from film days, and find the working distance is occassionally too much.
rjseeney 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 9:13 PM.