Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    249

    Which Micro Lens?

    I've ran across a pretty good deal for both the 60 and 105f2.8D Micro lenses. The 60 is $399 and the 105 for $569-both in EX+ condtion. Given a choice, which would you choose? Probably 80% of what I'd use it for would be portraits and short range wildlife not over about 30 feet. I have the 55-200 lens but thought something faster would be good and could use it for close up work as well. I've heard good things and read reviews about both of these and feel they're just as good as the latest AF-S lens in the same catagory.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    516
    I had a 60mm macro and it was alright for macro. I used a 105mm and it was THE AWESOME compared to the 60mm. Given the choice I'd get the 105mm.

    For portraits I was always going for my 50mm first. Never used the 60mm for portraits, only macro stuff. I see you've got a 85mm. I was under the impression that the 85mm was the portrait king??

    One thing I'd like to warn you about the 60mm (don't know if the 105 is like this too) but the closer your focus is, the smaller the apeture gets. It isn't constant f/2.8 throughout the entire focus range. Closer focus=smaller apeture. This kinda ticked me off and was one of the reasons why I didn't use it for anything other than macro.

    Something to think about.
    Small Town Newspaper Oaf

    East Coast Coorespondant for CRAWL Magazine!!??

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    483
    I'm thinking of getting the Sigma over the Nikon 105mm Micro. Has anyone used both? I know the 105mm Micro has an awesome clarity, but Sigma 105mm anyone?
    Nikon D700 | Nikon D90 | 14-24mm 2.8 | 24-70mm 2.8 | 35mm 1.8 | 50mm 1.4 | 85mm 1.4 | 105mm 2.8 Micro | 70-300mm VR | SB-800s | Tiffen UV Filter, ND and Polarizer set

    "You see, Netherlands is this make-believe place where Peter Pan and Tinkerbell come from."
    Joey Tribbiani


    Visit My Flickin' Flickr Shots | My Blog | My Porto-folio (requires Flash)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by LR Max View Post
    I had a 60mm macro and it was alright for macro. I used a 105mm and it was THE AWESOME compared to the 60mm. Given the choice I'd get the 105mm.

    For portraits I was always going for my 50mm first. Never used the 60mm for portraits, only macro stuff. I see you've got a 85mm. I was under the impression that the 85mm was the portrait king??

    One thing I'd like to warn you about the 60mm (don't know if the 105 is like this too) but the closer your focus is, the smaller the apeture gets. It isn't constant f/2.8 throughout the entire focus range. Closer focus=smaller apeture. This kinda ticked me off and was one of the reasons why I didn't use it for anything other than macro.

    Something to think about.
    Out of curiousity, are you the one that posted that shot of that dead and decaying dog in the hot sand on "Show Us Your Pooch" thread or was it someone else I'm thinking of?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    249
    Anyone else have either of these two lens that could give some guidance?
    Last edited by ColColt; 08-14-2008 at 04:11 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    if you shoot stationary stuff then the 60mm is fine. if its anything moving then the focal length is too short.

    some other considerations...
    there is a new 60mm micro which is better optically so i would DEFINATELY be looking at that over the older 60mm.
    the 105 has VR so if you are looking to handhold and not use flash, this is the one.
    the 105 is a sensational short tele lens
    the 105 is an excellent portrait lens
    the 105 will offer a narrower FOV so on one hand its a little harder to achieve great focus but it will render backgrounds more OOF to isolate subjects very well.

    i have not used the new 60mm but the old one had excellent contrast, the 105VR suffers from lack of contrast SOOC.

    the 105 has some focussing and sharpness issues at MFD.

    i would personally go for the 105 every time but thats due mostly to focal length and VR cos i think the new 60 micro is optically a better lens.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    249
    I have a couple of lens with VR and can't honestly tell they do any good. I've hand held the 55-200 at around 150mm and never did see the tremor diminish even after holding the shutter button down 15 seconds. The entire image still shook a bit.

    Rockwell gives the 105 some very good accolades for sharpness and contrast and in some ways he persuades one to think the D version is better in some respects over the VR version. I'm sure both are excellent lens and I've always like the 105 f2.5 for film cameras. It is indeed an excellent portrait lens so, you get two for the price of one...portrait and micro capability. With having the 85 already, it's close to either the 60 or 100 but I wanted a macro (micro) lens in the portrait range and either would actually fit the bill with the edge going somewhat to the 105 due to being able to get further away when shooting bees on flowers, for instance. Too bad I can't find both the 105D and 105VR to test first.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    793
    I've got the older 60mm macro and it's a very sharp lens, but the AF is poor. Doesn't really matter so much if you manually focus a lot of macro shots. It is a good lens for the price and is sharper than both my 50 or 85 primes. I would go with the 105 just for the longer focal length as it gives a bit more working distance.
    Nikon D700 | SB600 | SB-80DX | 2xSB-26 | 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 | 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G | 50 f/1.4 G | 105 f/2.8 VR | 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR

    flickr

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by ColColt View Post
    I have a couple of lens with VR and can't honestly tell they do any good. I've hand held the 55-200 at around 150mm and never did see the tremor diminish even after holding the shutter button down 15 seconds. The entire image still shook a bit.
    just trying to understand this. VR is good for at least 3 stops. even with unsteady hands. its very easy to tell. take a shot at 200mm @ say 1/15s with and without VR. if you cant see a difference then your lens is faulty.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by achuang View Post
    I would go with the 105 just for the longer focal length as it gives a bit more working distance.
    I sort of lean toward the 105 because of that and the fact that it's a superb portrait lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    just trying to understand this. VR is good for at least 3 stops. even with unsteady hands. its very easy to tell. take a shot at 200mm @ say 1/15s with and without VR. if you cant see a difference then your lens is faulty.
    I'll give that a shot tomorrow when day breaks. I sure hope nothing's wrong with the lens. It's pretty sharp and I hate sending anything back. They keep items for months.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •