Nikon 105mm vs 60mm micro (macro)

smile=]

smile=]

Active member
im looking into getting one of the two, what are the main differences between the two?

AF-S MICRO 105mm 2.8G VR or AF-S MICRO 60mm 2.8G ED
 
I'm guessing the 105 has VR and the 60 doesn't, and the focal length would be the two main differences.
 
If you don't know basic differences between two lenses, and can't find pictures taken with said lenses yourself, are you sure you need one of these lenses? Im not trying to tell you what to buy, because you're free to buy what you want. But I have a feeling you wouldn't know how to use these lenses effectively.... Maybe consider a reversed prime or extension tubes, or even a set of close up diopters?
 
People who shoot delicate stuff, stuff that will move if disturbed (insects), or those who just want more room to work (usually with lighting) will choose a longer focal length for macro so the camera can be further from the subject. The wider one is, well, wider and you'll have to be closer, or be able to fit more in at the same distance. I never work with macro lenses, but I'm assuming the dof won't be as selective with the wider one (although it's still gonna be rather selective since it's macro) at the same focus distance.

Reverser rings are a bit cheaper if you decide to go that route, and if you're gonna get diopters don't get really crappy ones, because they make the image gross. I had to use some in photo class once and the images weren't too sharp.
 
thank you!

i think i may buy the 105 just because it will be that much easier to shoot bugs.. i wont disturb them..

but i want to know what you gain and loose with each.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top