Nikkor Micro Lenses

besides focal range and price, are there any major differences between the 85mm f2.8 and the 105mm f/2.8? Which would you suggest buying and why?

Which micro lens (60mm, 85mm or 105mm) have applications in other forms of photography besides macro?

Besides focal range and price, I would say no, there are no major differences. The one I would suggest would be the 85mm simply because of the fact that it is tack sharp. Incredible lens. I love mine. All these lenses can be used for portrait photography also. For the money, these lenses can't be beat, in my humble opinion.

the 85mm is actually 3.5 fstop. the 60mm does not have VR but is probably the sharpest of all 3. All of them can be used for portrait lens of course.

I use the 60mm macro for everything, and if you can find a good deal on the older 105mm macro without VR it's a great lens and a lot small to pack around than the newer version.

A great deal depends on what you are shooting. A 60mm is perfect for flowers, insects that do not alert when the camera is close, and inanimate objects that allow you to get in close. Longer focal length lenses are needed when animals/insects are skittish or even poisonous, and when you can not get as close as you might like. A friend loves the challenge of photographing rattlesnakes with a 200mm Micro Nikkor, something I would prefer a 500mm super-tele for.

haha, your friend is insane blueiron! but i do admire their courage/stupidity. the 105mm is beautiful, but rather pricey.

thanks for the clarification Qarik.

in people's experience, is the faster apeture truely an advantage in macro work?

ophiuchus said:

in people's experience, is the faster apeture truely an advantage in macro work?

Click to expand...

In my experience, the faster aperture is certainly an advantage in those situations in which you want to shoot in lower light without a flash (e.g., close up photos of your cut flowers in a vase). The problem I have with my macro lenses (60mm, 105mm, and a 35-70mm zoom that can convert to macro at 35mm) is that the depth of field is very narrow even at the highest f-stop -- and this is compounded when you are shooting wide open. Of course, there are many times that you want that narrow DOF; but if, for example, you want to capture a full frame rose and have all petals in focus, it just won't do that. (Though -- photo editing software will allow you to stitch mutliple frames, so there are ways around it.)

ophiuchus said:

haha, your friend is insane blueiron! but i do admire their courage/stupidity. the 105mm is beautiful, but rather pricey.

thanks for the clarification Qarik.

in people's experience, is the faster apeture truely an advantage in macro work?

Click to expand...

for macro work..sicne the DOF is so thin..often you will want a higher aperture to get some more of your subject in focus. For example insects may need f8 or greater to get reasonable amount in focus. I would say 3.5 is plenty for macro work.

A faster f/stop can make it easier to focus in low light, but, using f/8-f/16 will afford a bit more in focus.
I have a 55mm Micro Nikkor f/3.5 I use in my M4/3 and Nikon FE, I typically use f/8 or f/11 and I don't crop in camera too tight. Because I can squeeze a little more DOF that way. I crop in editing.

I find around 100mm (fov) just fine foe most stuff I do.

Qarik said:

the 60mm does not have VR but is probably the sharpest of all 3. All of them can be used for portrait lens of course.

Click to expand...

I totally agree!

And don't forget the 85mm is a DX, if you latter plan to move to FF it can be a limitation.

I own a 105mm VR and by chance selling an older AF 105 mm micro but i've also tried the 60mm and both are very sharp

I recently bought the 40mm Nikon Macro and I rarely take it off now. I use it for everything.