drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

Hands down, the Nikon 105 F2.8. Wonderful lens!

ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

I have instinctively known from experience that when photographing tiny objects the 105mm lens serves me best and generally is the most useful lens in macro-photography. My very first macro was the Kiron 105mm.
Thank you fro clarifying the difference between MFD and MWD.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

It can also be stated that the distance scale on a lens is the subject distance - subject-to-focal plane. I have some published tables for Leica lenses, when used with either extension tubes or Elpro close-up lenses, that give both the subject distances and the subject-to-lens (or Elpro) distances. For my own tables, I measure from the subject to whatever is on the lens, such as a hood, ringlight, etc.

ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

You are saying that the "Distance scale" is the same as MFD (minimum focusing distance) and that "subject distance" is MWD (minimum working distance). I am surprised though that you measure from the top of your subject to whatever is on this element, e.g. filter, hood, ring-light) rather than the element itself and that, quite obviously, your subject remains in focus.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

[quote=ssymeono] You are saying that the "Distance scale" is the same as MFD (minimum focusing distance) and that "subject distance" is MWD (minimum working distance). [Quote]

I don't consider the distance scale reading to be either minimum or maximum - rather it is the actual subject-to-focal plane distance (subject distance) when the subject is in focus. And I find the term "minimum working distance" to be misleading (see my next comment).



I like to know the distance from the subject to the hood (or whatever) because that is the actual maximum distance I have for the placement of lights, to avoid spooking nervous subjects, etc.
Anyway, those are the terms I'm accustomed to using.