60mm vs 105mm macro lenses

[nerwin]

I'm just wondering if there is any benefits from having a 60mm macro? Because it seems like a longer telephoto like the 105 or longer seems to be more beneficial because the working distance is significantly more.

When would the 60 macro come in handy OVER a longer telephoto macro? I can see it being useful on crop bodies but the lens is designed for full frame bodies. Is it just more versatile because its wider but can focus to 1:1?

Most manufactures have both a 50 or 60mm macro and a 100 or 105mm macros.

 

[pixmedic]

I had a 50mm macro lens and was always wishing I didn't have to get so dang close to something to take a picture of it.

It might only be beneficial to have a shorter focal length if you plan to use it as a regular 60mm lens as well as a macro (if you needed or wanted 60mm for that particular focal length)

 

[nerwin]

I had a 50mm macro lens and was always wishing I didn't have to get so dang close to something to take a picture of it.

It might only be beneficial to have a shorter focal length if you plan to use it as a regular 60mm lens as well as a macro (if you needed or wanted 60mm for that particular focal length)

That was my thoughts. I can almost see it replacing a 50mm but with the ability to focus much closer.

I only wanted ask because I found a superb deal on a used 60 2.8G for $350, its tempting. I shouldn't have sold my 105 honestly, but I needed the money at the time. As I didn't use it that much, I think I might be better off getting the good ol' Tokina 100mm 2.8. Its kind of ugly and lens extends like crazy, but it has nice optics and..well..cheap. But then again, I don't even use my 50 1.8 and often complain that I can't focus close enough, the 60 2.8G might be better option for me.

 

[jcdeboever]

I used one for copy work and it was perfect for that. Other than that, I would prefer something longer to prevent shadowing subject.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[fmw]

I use a 60 but I use it on a crop camera with a small light tent so it has more working distance than the longer macro would have on a 35mm format. Personally I think the 60 is a bit too long for use with a small light tent. I sometimes have to swap it out for a wide angle lens. Outdoors, the longer focal length is a definite advantage. I wouldn't go any longer on a crop camera than 60. A 105 would be my choice for 35mm format.

 

[Solarflare]

Well a 55mm / 60mm macro is a nice normal lens as well.

While a 90mm / 100mm / 105mm macro is typically a nice portrait lens as well.

 

[Overread]

Few thoughts:

1) Price; shorter focal length macros tend to be cheaper than longer focal length ones (at least when comparing lenses of the same rough generation).

2) Working distance:
a) Subject wise generally is a boon to have more when working with anything that is alive and outside. Indoors and with static subjects a shorter focal length can sometimes be superior; especially if you're not always using 1:1. I've often used my 70mm instead of my 150mm when shooting indoors where I just don't have all that much room to shoot in.

b) Lighting; whilst 60mm is not that difficult; a longer focal length and working distance tends to give more room to get lighting in place. Less working distance means you've got even less room, especially if you fit diffuser setups to your flashes.

3) Focal length at normal distances affects the framing and some people have a preference there. This is often those who buy a macro to "Do something and macro" and thus are putting criteria in place such as the effect at normal focusing distances into the equation.

4) Flatter plane of focus/field curvature - its my observation (unquantified) that shorter focal length lenses are easier to produce with a flatter focal plane than longer focal length lenses; which makes the shorter one attractive to copy work where you don't need a huge working distance but you do want as flat a plane of focus as you can get.

5) Weight; important for some, smaller focal length lenses are typically lighter


I should note that the Canon MPE65mm macro is one of the top macro lenses and I've seen people prouce outstanding results with it; thus showing that 60mm is perfectly usable as a focal length in macro photography.

I generally say that any shorter and you get problems (at least for if you need flash and are working with living subjects) like overshadowing the subject; although some like the Nikon 40mm have very respectable working distances so its not a universal rule




In the end I got a 70mm sigma macro simply to play with shorter focal length macro work in advance of getting the MPE 65mm - my other macro being a 150mm so a world apart in working distances. I hung into the 70 because there have been many times where I can put that in the bag along with other lenses and its size and weight mean its easy to carry without adding a burden whilst the 150mm is larger and whilst not a hugly heavy weight its still more bulky and heavy and thus a consideration when being packed with other gear.

 

[Solarflare]

I should note that the Canon MPE65mm macro is one of the top macro lenses and I've seen people prouce outstanding results with it; thus showing that 60mm is perfectly usable as a focal length in macro photography.

What the ... ???

The Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 macro is a speciality lens, a 1:1 to 5:1 macro, opposed to the usual infinity to 1:1 or infinity to 1:2 macro lenses.

The rules that apply to infinity to 1:n, n=1 or 2 macro lenses do not apply for n:1 lenses which for technical reasons have to get increasingly wider in focal length the higher the n gets.

 

[Overread]

My point is if one 60mm (or 65mm if we get pedantic) can do wonders then another should be more than capable as well. Granted there will be some differences in working distance; and the MPE is often paired to the twinflash that makes lighting easier (however the twinflash can go to other lenses and Nikon has their own version too). I'm, of course, not comparing the greater than 1:1 shots from the MPE as that would be silly.

 

[astroNikon]

I've been looking at the 105 Nikon and 100 Tamron.

At what distance to a subject, say a dollar bill, would you be 1:1 ??

I know with my 24-85 in macro mode that I can get right up to the subject - literally inches away it seems. Which is way too close though creates interesting OOF areas.

 

[nerwin]

Now for an example, say if I was to get Nikon's 60 2.8G and I through on some like Kenko auto extension tubes which will increase magnification even further than 1:1, would this place the lens closer to the subject or would it increase the working distance slightly?

 

[nerwin]

I've been looking at the 105 Nikon and 100 Tamron.

At what distance to a subject, say a dollar bill, would you be 1:1 ??

I know with my 24-85 in macro mode that I can get right up to the subject - literally inches away it seems. Which is way too close though creates interesting OOF areas.

The thing is, I had the 105 2.8G VR and while it was an awesome piece of glass..I didn't use it that much and I didn't care for the swirling bokeh effect it made for portraits. Most of the time it sat in my bag...so my theory was maybe it might be better for me to get a shorter focal length macro that I can use for more than just macro. I love the 50mm fov, but hate that I can't focus closer. So getting a 60 2.8G might just solve my problem. I don't need to shoot at 1:1 all the time, but its nice to have.

Tamron makes a 60mm f/2 macro but its only for crop sensors Then again, if I need bokeh..I can just pop on my 50 1.8.

 

[Overread]

Extension tubes work by reducing both minimum and maximum focusing distances. Thus you won't get any more working distance at the closest focus - I've no idea if you can use them to get around 1:1 at a greater distance or not. It' an interesting thought but practically I'd expect the difference to be minimal at best.

Teleconverters will increase magnification, but won't change minimum nor maximum focusing distances; so you can use them to increase magnification to get more working distance at 1:1 - although physical properties of teleconverters mean they might not fit all macro lenses.

 

[nerwin]

I thought people often have issues with teleconverters on macros. I don't hear too many using them for macros.

I know some will use a 85 1.8 or 1.4 with extension tubes and I think if setup right, you can achieve further 1:1 mag but the working distance is awful.

Then again...I'm not really into taking pictures of microscopic things haha. All I wanted was a lens that I can focus closer 0.45m. I really liked Nikon's 35 f/2D because that could focus 1:4, not bad for a 35mm. But often, it was just too wide for what I wanted. So having a 60 2.8 might be worth owning.

 

[Ysarex]

Now for an example, say if I was to get Nikon's 60 2.8G and I through on some like Kenko auto extension tubes which will increase magnification even further than 1:1, would this place the lens closer to the subject or would it increase the working distance slightly?

At magnifications less than 1:1 the distance from the lens to the subject is greater than the distance from the lens to the sensor. When 1:1 is achieved the lens will be equal distant between the subject and sensor and the sensor will be 4x the lens focal length distant from the subject. This is the closest the sensor can get to the subject with that lens. For magnifications greater than 1:1 the lens to subject distance decreases from the 2x focal length 1:1 distance while the lens to sensor distance increases beyond the 2x focal length distance -- basically flipping the lens/subject, lens/sensor distance relationship that existed with magnifications less than 1:1.

Joe