Nikon 60mm 2.8 not staying at 2.8?

Hello, I just got a Nikon Micro 60mm 2.8, the older lens, before the D one, for doing wedding detail shots

The closer I focus, the camera sets the aperture higher and highter, until its around f/5 at the closest distance, Im in A mode of course.

Is there something that can stop that, or do I just have to live with it? I have the aperture ring locked at f/32 so that the camera can control it, would I have to do it all manually instead?

Its a pretty nice lens so far, im glad I paid less and got the older one instead of the newer version it does just fine for what ill use it for.

It's part of the macro thing. When you get closer there is more distance between the focal point of the lens and your subject. This reflects in a loss of light. So, even if the lens says 2.8, when you're at 1:1 it might be effective f5. Nothing about it you can do. A new lens would behave just the same anyway. It's physics...

Ah ok thanks, yeah Im not worried about it, I wouldn't want to shoot at 2.8 all the time anyways, just making sure I wasn't doing something wrong putting an "old" lens on a new camear

thegaffney said:

The closer I focus, the camera sets the aperture higher and highter, until its around f/5 at the closest distance, Im in A mode of course.

Click to expand...

Right, it's a macro thing, just what lenses do. Ordinarily, it ought go to f/5.6 at 1:1 magnification.

Exposure Increase Factor = (m + 1)²

m is magnification, which is 1 at 1:1, so 2² is 4, which is two stops, so f/2.8 goes to f/5.6. And f/16 goes to f/32.

Some wide or long lenses (asymmetrical lenses) don't conform exactly though, so some slight variations.

Thanks for asking about this @thegaffney ... I was wondering the same thing when I saw the 90mm f/2.8 Tamron macro do the same thing.

In many cases, it's not 'just' a macro thing. Most lenses will exhibit this behavior. But most don't have enough travel to minimum focus that the change is noticeable.

Thanks for the replies. This lens is great for being almost 25 years old!

This was at f/13 by the way, so another reason why needing 2.8 all the time for this is not important, nothing (important) would of been in focus