Micro Nikkor AF 60mm vs 105mm (D70)

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Ken Tough, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. Ken Tough

    Ken Tough Guest

    I'm tossing around the idea of one of these, but the AF 60mm f2.8D
    is maybe half the price of the AF 105mm f2.8D. Given the D70's 1.5x
    crop, it seems to me it might actually be a more useful size too
    (for macro work).

    Any opinions on comparing the two lenses?
    Ken Tough, Mar 18, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ken Tough

    Tom Scales Guest

    can't compare the two, but own and use the 60/2.8 on my D70. The results
    are fantastic.

    Tom Scales, Mar 18, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. I use the 105mm on my D70 and I can say it's fantastic. I haven't used a
    60mm on my D70, but from what I read the major difference is you get a
    greater minimum focusing distance with the 105mm. To me, having this extra
    distance is a great advantage for different lighting techniques. That said,
    I think you will enjoy either lens equally and won't find any shortcomings
    with either one. I always keep my eyes open on eBay to pick up a reasonably
    priced late model 60mm to compliment my 105mm, but haven't been lucky enough
    to snag one.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 18, 2005
  4. Ken Tough

    Kurt Rubin Guest

    Do they have inner-focussing?
    Then keep in mind that the 105 will be only about a 60-65 at 1:1.
    Kurt Rubin, Mar 18, 2005
  5. Ken Tough

    Alan Browne Guest

    It makes no difference to macro work at all what size the crop is.

    For a 1:1 macro, the image size formed at the sensor plane is the same
    size regardless. The cropped sensor is smaller, so you get a smaller
    overall image, but the subject matter is not larger becasue of it.

    IOW, a 5mm long subject at 1:1 will make a 5mm long image on the sensor
    whether it is 36x24 film or 24 x 16 CCD.
    Macro is easier at the longer focal length. You can work a bit further
    from the subject and allow more light in. OTOH the DOF is shallower and
    harder to control.

    Alan Browne, Mar 18, 2005
  6. Ken Tough

    Alan Browne Guest

    The 105 will be a 105. There is absolutely no change in focal length.

    At 1:1 an object of length x will form an image of length x on the sensor.
    Alan Browne, Mar 18, 2005
  7. Ken Tough

    Kurt Rubin Guest

    Except it has inner-focussing. I don't know that. Perhaps 60-65 is a bit
    exaggerating. 70-75 might be more reasonable.
    Kurt Rubin, Mar 18, 2005
  8. Ken Tough

    Alan Browne Guest

    But 105 is correct.

    In any case, cropping increases the "apparent" focal length, it does not
    reduce it.
    Alan Browne, Mar 18, 2005
  9. Ken Tough

    Kurt Rubin Guest

    Well, I was talking about inner-focussing, not crop, but I have looked it
    up, the lens does not have IF.
    Kurt Rubin, Mar 18, 2005
  10. Even if they don't call it IF, the 2.8/105 AF still uses the
    focal-length shortening trick to get to 1:1 without needing
    too much extension.
    Easily seen by comparing it to an older extension-only lens,
    such as the 4/105 Micro. Working distances at 1:1:

    from film plane filter thread
    4/105 with PN-11 42 cm 17.5 cm
    2.8/105 31.4 cm 13.6 cm

    Christoph Breitkopf, Mar 18, 2005
  11. 60/2.8 micro and 105/2.8 micro give you the same reproduction ratio:
    1:1. with the 1.5x crop factor of d70, this means that both the lenses
    reach 1.5:1.

    what makes difference is that with 105 you may remain far away from
    the subject by a couple of inches more than with the 60. this is a
    nice thing.

    one more thing pro the 105 is that i'm being told that often 60/2.8
    micro has leaks of oil into the diaphragm blades.

    just my 2 eurocents.
    Gianni Rondinini, Mar 18, 2005

  12. I have a 105. I had the earlier 105 (non AF) for many years and it was
    a great lens, but I sold it and got an AF when we got an F5 about 6
    years ago. The AF isn't all that useful for macro work but we use the
    lense for other things as well. The AF version focuses down to 1:1
    macro, which the old one didn't.

    I use th e105 with the D70 as well. The field of view is narrow, but
    the 60 would get you closer to the subject, making lighting more

    Still, a ring light (non flash) would cost less than the difference
    between 60 and 105.

    Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

    Let us restore integrity and honor to the White House
    Rodney Myrvaagnes, Mar 18, 2005
  13. At 1:1 the 105 has about 125 mm clearance from the front of the lens
    to the subject. That makes lighting quite easy.

    Perhaps someone with a 60 mm can make the clearance measurement for
    that one.

    Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

    Let us restore integrity and honor to the White House
    Rodney Myrvaagnes, Mar 18, 2005
  14. Ken Tough

    Ken Tough Guest

    Right, I could see that. So for the distance I have to be from
    some subject (say, a bee) with a 35mm camera and a 105mm lens,
    I could be roughly the same distance away with a D70 and the 60mm
    lens, to make the same subject full frame.
    I've seen that said about, I think, the 35mm Nikon? Can be nasty
    if you don't use it all the time, I think (maybe because it sits
    in the same position too long and the oil collects).

    Ken Tough, Mar 18, 2005
  15. Ken Tough

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Inner focusing is just the same as rear focusing and "front focusing".
    There is no magic to moving the front element. If the lens really became
    a lens with a 60mm lens at 1:1, it would also experience a rather
    stunning aperture enlargement which many people would have noticed.

    That it becomes a 100mm lens at 1:1 (or a 110mm) or something in that
    ballbark might be believable but its really hard to credit even 75mm.
    Sander Vesik, Mar 20, 2005
  16. But there is "magic" in moving _all_ of the elements, which is of
    course impossible without moving the front element. All IF lenses, as
    well as other "floating element" designs, change focal length with
    focus. It's just not nearly as noticable at non-macro distances.
    My calculations put the focal length around 78.5mm. Remember, all
    lenses also undergo a reduction in effective aperture as you focus
    closer than infinity, but again the effect typically isn't significant
    at non-macro distances. So you don't see enlargement of effective
    aperture with the 105mm AF, but you do see slightly less of a
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 20, 2005
  17. that's probably correct. i don't doubt on what you say: i only mean
    that macro lenses are strange, for some things, and not all the
    "rules" of regular lenses are ok for macro lenses.

    even because the "real" focal length of macro lenses isn't the same at
    every reproduction ratio --don't ask me why--: on nikonians.org there
    are few articles on macrophotography that talk about this.
    for example, 105/2.8 micro at 1:1 repro-ratio has a focal length of
    85mm, not 105. then i guess that a 60/2.8 micro isn't a 60mm at 1:1
    since this is a strange thing by itself, i expect the "curve" of focal
    length to be non linear and i wouldn't bet that at the same
    reproduction ration a 105 and a 60mm would have focusing distances in
    the same ratio that an ordinary 105 and an ordinary 60 would have.

    i hope i was clear enough: i know i have problems with english but,
    hey, i'm italian and italy is probably the country with less
    foreign-languages-speaking people :)
    this may be a cause, but it seems to be a flaw in the lens design,
    because the 60/2.8 micro has a far higher tendence to do this than
    other lenses.

    see you in south west usa next august ;)
    Gianni Rondinini, Mar 21, 2005
  18. 60/2.8 micro and 105/2.8 micro give you the same reproduction ratio:
    This is a common misconception. The 1.5x factor does NOT make the
    lenses 1.5:1. Whether on a film camera or on a digital camera, the
    lenses are both 1:1.

    The only difference is that in expanding shots from both cameras to
    the same size enlargement, say, 4x6, the image from the digital camera
    will be larger, because it captures less information.

    When you think of what the 1.5x crop factor does on a digital camera,
    think of taking a 35mm, and cutting off a border so you only have the
    middle to work with.

    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 22, 2005
  19. Ken Tough

    ian lincoln Guest

    I think it would be simpler to say that the angle of view for a given focal
    length. And yes that view is arrived at by cropping rather than an actual
    change of focal length.
    ian lincoln, Mar 22, 2005
  20. you are right. my one was a concise way to say what you said.
    at the practical stage, what you get is a higher reproduction ratio
    with digital cropped image than the traditional film one, but the lens
    reproduction ratio is the same for the 2 different supports.
    and that's the reason for which i *didn't* get a 12-24dx for my

    Gianni Rondinini, Mar 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.