60mm 2.8 Micro
- Thread starter zutty
- Start date
The 60mm is an excellent lens. I have the older D version, the newer one is said to be even better.
And I also have the 105mm VR macro. People get hung up thinking it is the only choice, because for 1:1 shots of bugs, the 105mm has advantage of having about six inches working distance in front of lens at 1:1, where the 60mm is a bit less than three inches in front. Which works of course, but it can interfere with lighting, or scare a bug, etc. The 105 is nice at 1:1.
But you said still life and product work, which suggests maybe 3 feet, and the tables turn. Then the 105mm is telephoto, and thus has to be nearly double that distance, which becomes awkward. Room space may not even be that large, and you can no longer reach both subject and camera at same time. FX minimizes that, but it's a bear with DX.
In the same way that the shorter lens is also best for copy stand work, because the copy stand will not be tall enough to use the 105.
And I also have the 105mm VR macro. People get hung up thinking it is the only choice, because for 1:1 shots of bugs, the 105mm has advantage of having about six inches working distance in front of lens at 1:1, where the 60mm is a bit less than three inches in front. Which works of course, but it can interfere with lighting, or scare a bug, etc. The 105 is nice at 1:1.
But you said still life and product work, which suggests maybe 3 feet, and the tables turn. Then the 105mm is telephoto, and thus has to be nearly double that distance, which becomes awkward. Room space may not even be that large, and you can no longer reach both subject and camera at same time. FX minimizes that, but it's a bear with DX.
In the same way that the shorter lens is also best for copy stand work, because the copy stand will not be tall enough to use the 105.
Last edited: