Jim Bianco

I want to buy a 60mm 2.8 D lens micro Nikon lens , the reviews are great what do you guys think? Jim Bianco

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Agree 100 percent Jim.Owned one for about 2 years and sold it for a 105Micro Nikkor to give me more working distance.

richandtd Loc: Virginia

Why the 60 and not the 105 2.8?

Jim Bianco

I can't afford the other lens, so the 60mm I'd my best bet. Jim

art pear Loc: North Dakota

If you want some more length the Tokina 100mm is excellent and cheaper.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Check out this one. Great buy

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f-2-8-D-Lens/233070947844?epid=101761937&hash=item36441c6e04:g:DagAAOSwALpcJPgN:rk:3:pf:0

Almostageezer Loc: USA

I would suggest waiting and saving for the 105.

therwol Loc: USA

The 60mm 2.8 D lens is compatible with the new Nikon ES-2 film digitizer that you attach to the lens. Other setups for photographing back lit subjects like transparencies are fine with lenses like this. You need more working distance for other types of subjects if you really go into the macro range. Illumination can be difficult if the lens is sitting too close to the subject. (The lens can be in the way.)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Just to clarify...

Are you looking at the Micro-Nikkor AF 60mm f/2.8D....or the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED?

The AF lens will not be able to autofocus on some Nikon cameras: the D3000 and D5000-series, among the current models. It will only be able to autofocus on D7000-series and higher models.

The slightly more expensive AF-S lens will be able to autofocus on all current and recent Nikon cameras.

Manual focus isn't a big deal for macro shooting... in fact a lot of macro shooters prefer it. But if you would like to use the lens for other things, it might be nice to have autofocus. Between the two Nikkors, the one you choose depends upon what camera you want to use it upon. I believe both are FX lenses (full frame capable) so will be fully usable on both FX and DX format cameras.

Another difference is that the AF/D lens is NOT internal focusing... while the AF-S/G lens is an IF lens. This effects working distance when shooting high magnification macro (see below).

You also might want to consider the Tamron SP 60mm f/2 macro lens. It's got a stop larger max aperture than the Nikkors, which makes it very useful for things like candid portraiture, too, where you may want to more strongly blur down backgrounds. It is a "crop only" (DX in Nikon terms) lens, though.... so is only usable on the APS-C/DX camera bodies (D3000/D5000/D7000-series, D300/D500/etc.) If you want the lens for use on an FX camera, that would rule the Tamron out. However, if using a DX camera, the Tamron 60mm is a nice, compact lens. It;s also internal focusing (doesn't extend when focused closer) and able to do full 1:1 magnification. The Tamron has a built in focusing motor so will be able to autofocus on all current Nikon DX cameras. It uses a micro motor to autofocus, which is fine for macro and portraiture, but not fast enough for any sort of action photography (most macro lenses are too slow for that purpose anyway, even when they use faster forms of focus drive such as the AF-S lens). It also doesn't have a focus limiter to help speed up autofocus. It sells for close to the same price as the less expensive Micro-Nikkor 60mm.

There's also a Venus Optics Laowa 60mm f/2.8 Ultra Macro lens that's uniquely able to focus to 2:1 magnification, double what the Nikkors or Tamron can do. It is an FX lens, so will work fine on both FX and DX cameras... However it's a manual focus onlyand manual aperture only lens. This will make it a bit slower to work with. It's $100 to $200 cheaper than those other 60mm lenses.

60mm lenses are nice and compact, but they do limit your working distance to some extent. At full 1:1 magnification, most have a minimum focus distance (MFD) around 8 or 9 inches. Keep in mind that MFD is measured from the sensor/film plane of the camera... so part of the space is occupied by some of the camera body and the lens itself, as well as any accessories you attach to the front of the lens (hood, filters, flash).

I use a 60mm Tamron a lot on my APS-C cameras. It doesn't take up much space in my camera bag or add much weight, plus it doubles as a portrait lens. IMO it would be too short a focal length for macro work on a full frame camera.

When I'm "serious" about macro shooting, my favorite lens is a 100mm (on both crop and full frame cameras). I shoot Canon gear, so it's a Canon lens (which are nice because theirs are the only 100mm macro that can be fitted with a tripod ring, which I use and wouldn't want to be without!)

90mm, 100mm, 105mm macro lenses give you around 12" minimum focus distance. They are larger, though, so some of that additional MFD space is taken up by the lens.

In addition to the excellent but pricey Micro-Nikkor 105mm... There is the Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 D Macro. It's one of the least expensive macro lenses and fairly "basic" in many ways. It's not internal focusing and in Nikon mount it cannot autofocus on D3000/D5000 series (like "AF" Nikkors, it lacks the in-lens focus motor).

There also is a Sigma 105mm Macro that closely rivals the Nikkor in almost all respects... except for price. It's been heavily discounted lately, so is far less expensive now. In fact it used to be more expensive than the Nikkor 105. But Sigma has a $400 instant rebate/discount on it now, so it ends up costing little more than the Micro-Nikkor 60mm AF/D lens and less than the AF-S/G lens. When I see a big discount like that, it makes me suspect Sigma is about to release a new version and may be clearing the shelves of the current model. Thia doesn't mean that the current model isn't still a very fine lens, though. The Sigma 105mm macro IS internal focusing.

Sigma also recently introduced a 70mm f/2.8 Macro lens... This is actually a re-introduction or a new version of a lens they made for a long time, but didn't offer for several years. I have no experience with it and don't know a lot about it, but see that it's on sale too and now costs about the same as the cheaper Micro-Nikkor 60mm. I did notice that the Sigma 70mm is NOT internal focusing.

I also use a 180mm macro lens, mostly on full frame cameras, but occasionally on croppers when I need LOTS of working space, such as photographing things that bite or sting! A 180mm or 200mm macro gives about 18" MFD. However they are also harder to hold steady and have very shallow depth of field, so are a bit more challenging to work with.

There really are no "bad" macro lenses I'm aware of... They all seem capable of making very good images. It's more the other features that distinguish them from each other: price, focal length, magnification potential, working distance, internal focusing (or not), autofocus performance, image stabilization, focus limiters, tripod mounting rings, etc. It's mostly just a matter of picking one that fits your particular purposes and budget best.

Jim Bianco

I have a D7100 Nikon camera, so the 60mm D will work fine.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I just purchased (today) the 105 f2.8 macro. I've been checking it out using my D5000 and it looks like it's going to be a great lens! I haven't had a chance to use it with my D7100 yet but I think they will play well together. I'm looking forward to spending more time with it. I bought it used from Adorama, still expensive but I think it's going to be worth it.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

This is the only D lens I still own, it is that sharp. It is, possibly the sharpest Nikon lens even produced. IMHO

ppkwhat Loc: Gibsonton, FL

Jim, I own both lenses. they are great, but I use the 105 about 80% of the time.

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

I have both the 60mm and the 105. I use the 60 when I want to get closer and a wider angle of view and the 105 when I need greater distance.

Jim Bianco

Thanks for all your help