Nikkor 105mm micro VR vs. nikkor 60mm micro no VR

[iknowdatalfabat]

which one is better?
I don't know my micro lenses and whether having a flatter focal length is better or what?

 

[icassell]

I don't know Nikon, but I debated between the Canon 60 f2.8 macro and the 100mm f2.8 macro. I've been very happy with the 100 because I don't have to get quite so close to my macro subjects and it also is a beautiful portrait lens.

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

which one is better?
I don't know my micro lenses and whether having a flatter focal length is better or what?

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

ok cuz yeah I'm not too sure. and I don't know if vibration reduction is necessary on a micro.

 

[tirediron]

Not sure what you mean by a 'flatter' focal length, as for which is better, it depends on your needs. Both are opitically excellent lenses; the 105 will allow you to be back further from your subject, but costs significantly more. If you're doint a lot of insect work, and can afford it, I'd suggest the 105. If you do flowers, plants and things that don't run away and/or are budget concious, I'd say the 60mm.

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

yeah I really wanna do insect work. so I guess I will save for that in the future. hhaa

 

[icassell]

I don't have any VR type lens, so I don't know how much it helps.

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

I don't think Canon makes that anyway. I know Sigma doesn't.

 

[icassell]

I don't think Canon makes that anyway. I know Sigma doesn't.

Canon calls theirs "IS", but no, not in the 50, 60, or 100mm macros.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The 105 gives you shallower depth of field and longer working distance, the 60mm handles AMAZING, but working distance is 2 inches and no VR.

Personally I'd take the 105 becuase the portrait length kicks butt on film.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

2 threads?



really?

 

[LaFoto]

Nope! Changed that. Merged them into one only.
There is no reason to start two threads on the same subject, other than it having been a mistake, which can be remedied . OK, iknowdatalfabat?

 

[tirediron]

The 105 gives you shallower depth of field and longer working distance, the 60mm handles AMAZING, but working distance is 2 inches and no VR.

Personally I'd take the 105 becuase the portrait length kicks butt on film.

VR/IS/Whateveryourbrandofcameracallsit/ is just one more thing to break. Given that the OP wants to insect macro work - it's not like you're going to be hand-holding the camera, I would suggest buy the old, Non-VR 105 and save a few dollars.

With respect to your comment about the 60mm and a working depth of 2", that's not quite true. The working depth can be as little as two inches, but it can also be much greater. As well, on a APS-C camera, the lens has an effective focal length of 90mm or thereabouts; ideal for portrait work.

 

[Bifurcator]

Good job LaFoto!

yeah I really wanna do insect work.

For bug shots like you see on this site most commonly, it's like F11 ~ F16 around the vicinity of 1/200 synced flash with some sort of diffusor.

Here's one setup and process - includes PP: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126794
and here's some ideas for a macro diffuser: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1292354

 

[skiboarder72]

go with the 105mm micro, I would rather have it 10x over the 60mm... your going to appreciate the extra working distance at 1:1