Jim Bianco

Is the Nikon 60mm 2.8 micro D lens worth more than the 24- 85 3.5 vr afs Nikon lens.I was thinking of selling my afs lens for the60mm D lens, do you guys think it is a good trade off or just keep the afs lens. The bottom line is what lens is worth more. Thanks Jim Bianco

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

They are two different type of lens, all depends yourself. The 60mm is a 1:1 macro lens, and the other is a general short zoom lens.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Jim I have both the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens and the AF micro 60mm f/2.8D lens...

As wingclui44 mentions they are two very different optics... with very different applications...

The short answer to which is "worth more?" the Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D Lens current is listed at $516.95 while the AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR is listed at $496.95 so the 60mm is worth more new...

But that is not likely what you want to hear, instead like so many other hobbyist you are actually seeking validation for your next investment...

To cut to the chase, since you actually don't know enough to make a rational decision here I would strongly suggest you stick with your 24-85mm in as it is far more forgiving for hobbyist...

The Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D Lens is a professional lens and as such likely only has worth/value to a commercial shooter... Not a hobbyist who may be challenged to deploy it effectively...

FYI: I use my Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D Lens infinitely more than the inferior 24-85mm hobbyist lens which shipped as a standard lens with the D600/D610 and although it is vastly better than the popular 24-120mm which is no match for the good performance you will continue to enjoy with your AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR.

But please don't take my word (or any other UHH member's word on this) instead look to a magazine editor vastly more experience than you will find on UHH

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html

Jim you will actually know when you would benefit from the 60mm micro...
There will be no need to query others at that juncture...

I wish you well on your photographic journey Jim

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Great reply, Thomas! Pertinent to many of us.

Jim Bianco

Th
Thanks to all you guys for the input great help.. Jim Bianco

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

If you want the macro capability go with the Nikon 105G.

Bill_de Loc: US

You didn't mention what body you are using. The 60mm micro needs a motor in the body to auto focus. If you really want one, they are selling used for less than $250.

--

Jim Bianco

I have a D7100 Nikon camera.

Jim Bianco

This is the older version of the 60mm 2.8 micro lens.

BebuLamar

check used price on completed sales on ebay.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

You’re the only one to answer the question so far!

ELNikkor

The 24-85 is far more versatile, and for most shots, no one could tell the difference between the 60 macro, and the 24-85, (which can also get in pretty close. The new 24-120, by the way, is at least on a par with that 24-85 performance-wise, and has 35mm more reach.) I have several micro/macro lenses, in addition to my recent model 24-120, but I seldom use them.

Bill_de Loc: US

That should work fine with the 60 you are considering. On that camera it will give you a field of view equivalent to a 90mm on a full frame camera.

---

Jim Bianco

Thanks

woodweasel Loc: bellingham Wa

24-85