larryepage wrote:
There is a wide variety of macro lenses avaliable for your cameras. Most are quite good, many are excellent. It is difficult to be knowledgeable about all of them.
Like you, I have both DX and FX Nikon cameras. I have a Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro that I bought probably 13 years ago and a Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 that I bought a couple of years ago, initially for 35mm transparency and negative copying. I like both of them, but I don't shoot bugs, for which the longer lens you mentioned would be better. The 60mm has a weight and size advantage, while the 105mm has a working distance advantage, which makes lighting a little easier even if I'm not shooting live subjects. There is a lot of confusion around how macro performance compares on the two formats, but working distance of the 60mm on a DX camera is very similar to working distance of the 105mm on an FX camera for the same framed image.
Both of these lenses also do well when used to photograph at more normal distances, and both do well as flat field copy lenses at intermediate distances.
The big advantage over either reversing a standard lens or using extension tubes is that there is no exposure loss. Extension tubes in particular spread out the image of the lens they are used with, reducing the effective speed of the lens, usually by a significant amount.
There is a wide variety of macro lenses avaliable ... (
show quote)
You are not correct. Using a lens with extension tubes and using a macro lens to achieve 1:1 magnification will produce identical exposures. A macro lens has effectively extension tubes built in. The f number on your lens refers to the value at infinity focus. Nikon cameras when using a macro lens keep track of the adjusted f number automatically. Other brands may not do so.