nikkor 60 mm vs 105mm micro

[lobster]

Looking at the features

60 vs 105
no stabilisation vs VR
D vs ED


I have read that the 105 doubles up as a good mid-range prime, although the use would be for micro photos.
The question I should be asking is 60 mm enough ? or can you tell the different between the lens quality?

 

[pogofish]

Dunno about the new autofocus/VR lenses but I find my old 105 manual nikkor to be a far superior lens to my 55s, both in image quality & as a practical working lens.

The newest of my three 55s does make a nice bright short tele on the DSLR tho. I'm fond of it in low light:

And it works well with transmitted light for things like this damaged victorian microscope slide that I reckoned to be too fragile to put on a microscope:

Optically, I don't think there is a great difference between these lenses & the modern designs but I'm prepared to believe the VR may be very useful on the new 105.


Actually, I remain unconvinced about autofocus & macro altogether. When working with my Canon autofocus macros, they spend nearly all their time switched to manual.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I've got the 60mm and it's fabulous. Really it's all about the length. With the longer 105mm the VR is a nice touch, but something that's not needed as much with the 60mm.

Remember the crop factor of course: the 60mm comes to about 90mm equivalent on my D50, so the 105mm would be approx. 150mm equivalent. I've happily used the 60mm as a walk-about lens, although obviously I occasionally get frustrated when I can't move far enough back to get everything in shot. It makes a great portrait lens and it's macro capability is ace. I rarely take it off my D50 now (perhaps that's because it's the only lens I have other than the kit lens that is pretty naff).

 

[lobster]

My mind is now on the Tokina 100mm , its just over £200.
I have a Tokina 28-70mm which works fine, albeit heavy.

 

[onthebrightside]

If you're looking at non-Nikon lenses do be sure to have a play with a Tamron 90mm Macro.

 

[pogofish]

Yup, the Tamron 90mm is a classic & very competent alternative to Nikkors.

 

[clint999]

Yup, the Tamron 90mm is a classic & very competent alternative to Nikkors.

 

[tom_craggs]

Assume you're talking about the Nikon 105mm? If so also perhaps worth looking at Sigma ex 105 macro - use it on my Canon - image qaulity is easily as good as Canon proffessional (L) glass and I am sure compares similarly to decent Nikkor lenses...although perhaps not as sturdy...

 

[lobster]

sorry i meant the nikon 105mm.

I just lost a bid on ebay last night on a the older nikkor 105mm before the addition of VR.
I've heard that the Sigma one is not bad either.. so many choices

as the Sigma has the extra 15mm extra than the Tamron , it could be a deciding factor.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

One thing to bear in mind if you're considering the 105 VR is that it's pretty massive. So while it is indeed a superb moderate tele if you find that range useful, it's also almost as bulky and conspicuous as a 70-200 or something.

For moderate close-up work without a tripod (e.g. wandering around some famous garden that doesn't allow tripods, taking pictures of flowers and for nature stuff generally) it's great, but the VR doesn't work in anything like true macro range. Also, due to the way it works optically, if you use a tripod you'll find yourself bouncing the tripod in and out, because framing changes significantly when you're focussing. The image quality is outstanding though.