tor24tor Loc: Caldwell, NJ

I enjoy macro photography, am an amateur and have used my Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and 18-55 lenses to attempt macro so far. I try to buy used lenses so I can get better ones at an affordable price. Is it worth getting a Nikon 60mm Macro for a better price as opposed to the either Nikon 85 or 105mm Macro's at a much higher price? (Good judgement comes from experience - Experience comes from poor judgement!)

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

The little experience I have in Macro indicates that 100mm-180mm are the preferred focal lengths for serious Macro work. You actually should post this question on the True Macro Forum here on the Hog. It is moderated by Nikonian72. Anything he tells you is worth paying attention to.

tor24tor Loc: Caldwell, NJ

Thanks, I will try that

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

I use the Nikon 60mm macro all the time...very versatile lens.

(Download)

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Nice shot. I have a 60mm Macro also, but apparently, my original definition of Macro was not "true":

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-181559-1.html

Nikonian72 explained it to me.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Yes real macro starts at 1:1 and only gets larger with regards to magnification.

amehta Loc: Boston

I think the conventional wisdom is that a longer focal length like the 85-105mm range is more useful, since it has a larger minimum focus distance to get to 1:1. This helps the little critters not get spooked, and it also gives you more room to light the subject. Basically, if you're going to spend the money on a "specialty" lens, I think it's worth doing it "right". :-)

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

I have the Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D Macro Lens, It's built like a tank and extremely sharp. Minimum focusing distance is 4.5". It's rated right up there with the Nikkor 105mm micro and you can get it for around $400.00 at Amazon.

greg vescuso Loc: Ozark,Mo.

I shoot with canon and have a sigma 105mm 2.8 and just love this lens. I was at a local pawn shop and they had one for a Nikon mount for $300.

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

my advice to you? go for the Nikon 105 2.8 macro
its not cheap, but I"m sure you can find a good one used either on Amazon, or Ebay, I"ve put up, a foto, that I took, some time ago, useing my Nikon 105 2.8 lens, in my opinion, its the best macro, that nikon makes

this is a photograph, that I took with my Nikon D300 and my Nikon 105 2.8 macro lens, judge the results for yourself

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I have both the 60mm and the 105. I use both - the 60 mm when I want a wider angle of view, the 105 when I need a linger reach or a smaller angle of view.

cthahn

Nikon 105mm / f2.8

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

both are excellent lenses, however I prefer the Nikon 105 2.8
because, you get a beautiful portrait lens, as well, as a magnificent macro lens

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Repost it & check the "store original" block so that we can judge it more easily.... As for macro lenses, they are all designed for close focusing & any will give you good results as long as you have proper techniques. I have 6 different AF & MF lenses & they all give me sharp results. I tend yo use an older manual focus 105mm lens from film days as my go to for macro (which I shoot a lot of). That focal length is the best in terms of convenience. As noted above, the shorter lengths put you right up on your subject & work well for static subjects or copy work. Longer focal lengths have great working distances, but the trade off there is much higher prices & much bigger/heavier lenses...Oh, I'm sure someone will bring up dXomark scores. Take them with a grain of salt as bench testing is completely different than real world shooting. Note the scores only note where the lenses is "best" at... In real world shooting differences between lenses (given identical shooting criteria) would be hard to discern...

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

It's already been mentioned that pretty much any lens designated as "macro" (or "micro" in Nikon lingo)is designed to give sharp photos at very close ranges - specifically, to where you can achieve a 1:1 ratio of subject size to the image projected on the sensor. That is, if you were to take a photo of a square postage stamp that was 10MM on a side, the sensor would be capturing an image that is 10MM as well - that's the 1:1 ratio. Of course, for lowers that are 2 inches big, you don't need to get that close, but that's the concept.

Just so you understand the impact of focal length, however - the longer the focal length of the macro lens, the more "working distance" you can have between it and the subject. So while both the 50MM macro and the 200MM macro lenses will allow you to achieve that 1:1 (or whatever) reproduction ratio, the longer lens will enable you to do it from, say 15 inches away as opposed to 6 inches away. This can be helpful for
a) subjects that are icky (like bugs and such)
b) subjects to which you cannot get too close (in a botanical garden, perhaps, where there is a fence or something keeping you a minimum distance away, and
c) better lighting options, as with more space you will probably have better capabilities to illuminate your subject without worrying about the lens itself casting a shadow across part of it

I use the 105MM as well as the 200MM Micro Nikkors; each has it's place (as does the 85MM PC Micro Nikkor, which I use less often as it's a bit of a PITA) - you can see various samples on my website if you wish. I've also used the 180MM Sigma years ago and it was quite excellent.