Macro Lens Nikon 60mm Vs 105mm

[sworks335i]

As the title shows I am looking for a Macro lens and can't really decide between the two. I was looking to see if anyone here has used either one or both and would have a recommendation.

I already have a 50mm and a 70-200mm but they are not able to get close enough for detail shots at weddings and portraits. Of course it would be fun to play with either one at trying to get some great shots of bugs and other little critters (clearly the 105mm would be better for that). Only real difference I see is length and price.

Anyone have any other thoughts on these two lenses?

Thanks!

[E92Fan]

I have had both - the 60mm macro is beautiful, but the working distances are just way too short. There's no flexibility in the lens, and if you do want to take close ups of critters etc you'll find that you need to get so close you'll scare them away.

The 105mm is a much better working lens and can be used as a decent portrait lens as well. The 60mm is really only for copy-stand work and nothing more.

[scollins]

Maybe try some extension tubes on your 70-200? The Kenko ones allow for AF and metering, although you probably want to manually focus if you are at macro distances.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc....html#features

Another option is a screw in "close up lens", like the Canon 500D. These are 77mm lenses that screws onto the front of your glass (so it isn't Canon specific.) A few other manufacturers make them as well, such as B+W, Heliopan, etc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...947+4294955264

I personally have no experience with extension tubes nor the close up lenses.

Here is what "mb" posted on Nikonrumors regarding the two:

Macro filter lens:
- Pros
Easy to use (just screw it on, you do not have to remove your lens)
Generally cheap alternative to genuine macro lens (Canon 500D is about 150$)
- Cons
They add some glass in front of your lens so they alter and degrade optical characteristics (Canon 500D uses good quality glass so the degradation is a bit less visible but it is present)
You can not use it on wider lenses (Canon 500D will cause severe vignetting on anything wider than 70mm and visible vignetting on most lenses up to 105mm because of it thickness, you can however diminish this by using 77mm Canon 500D on 67mm lens with step up filter adapter)
You can use Canon 500D only on the lenses with same (or smaller with step up adapter) filter threads.
It is almost impossible to use any other filter with it.
Extension tubes:
- Pros
Does not alter optical characteristics (it is just an empty tube without any glass)
It is cheap (you could get 3 peace set for 150$ and it will give you 3 different focusing distances)
You could use them on any lens you have (same mount of course) no matter focal length.
You can use all your filters (except close-up of course, actually you could but it would break your heart)
- Cons
They are more difficult to use (you will have to remove the lens, mount an extension tube and then remount the lens on it)
They increase the distance from the lens to the sensor (or film) so they decrease the amount of light (close-up filter do so also but to a less degree) but TTL cameras will still meter correctly.
They are heavier and bigger then close-up filter.
I prefer extension tubes, especially on sharp and high contrast lenses like Nikon AF 50mm or 85mm f/1.8 D and I think they would be a better choice on high quality optics like 70-200 (subject distance is actually the same), though I do have close-up filter lens too (77mm Canon 500D is really good on Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR with 67-77 step up adapter attached) it is all about convenience really.

[- Paul -]

I've been pricing up these tubes for a while - has anyone on here 1st hand experience of them?

I love macro and need a better way than using the Canon Sx1 with a raynox on it.

[E92Fan]

Originally Posted by - Paul -

I've been pricing up these tubes for a while - has anyone on here 1st hand experience of them?

I love macro and need a better way than using the Canon Sx1 with a raynox on it.

The tubes won't work well on the 18-200mm lens you have. You're better off with a Canon 500D filter and doing your macro shots at around 180mm on the lens. As long as you use a decent tripod and stop the lens down to around f/6.3 you'll get amazing results. Because you're using a 180mm focal length, you'll still get decent enough background isolation with the close focussing

[- Paul -]

At £179.99 for the 77mm version, I may be better looking out for a second hand 100mm micro?

[jc_lbc]

Originally Posted by E92Fan

The 60mm is really only for copy-stand work and nothing more.

I've got fantastic shots of insects with my 60 and while yes, the working distances are short it's far from useless. The 105 is much better for that but you probably want a 200 if that's really you're thing so even then it's a trade off. And if you're shooting inanimate objects I think the 60 is a better choice then the 105. Plus it's cheaper, especially if you've got a D80 or any other Nikon that can use the older D lenses. A used one from Keh.com is ridiculously cheap compared to what I paid 3 years ago new.