I am looking into a "real" macro lens with 1:1 capabilites without additional extension. yeah, yeah i know the nikkor 200mm micro rocks, but i simply dont have the cash to throw into a piece like that.
im trying to decide between a 60mm micro nikkor, a 90 mm tamron macro. i know nikon will most likely be higher quality, but the added focal distance appeals to me with the tamron. i could always fo the 105mm nikon lens route as well, that in my opinion is the best option, but at around 700$, i wouldnt be using it enough to really get my money's worth, and with tamron at half the price, comparable (90 as opposed to 105) focal, its pempting because i tend to like the feel of tamron lenses and have never ever noticed a picture qality difference with tamron lenses. anyone have either of these lenses or any insight that would help me?
thx a ton
#1. "Micro lenses" | In response to Reply # 0jrp Charter MemberFri 14-Jul-00 09:10 PM
LAST EDITED ON Jul-15-00 AT 01:16 AM (GMT)
The lens that I like the most is the 105mm f/2.8 AF D Micro Nikkor, that goes 1:1; great reviews all over the place, like at
Furthermore, this lens is going for USD550 (grey) right now at B&H
On the other hand, the 60mm f/2.8 D-AF Micro Auto Focus Lens (also grey) runs for USD335 at the same B&H, and it also gives 1:1
Have a great time
Previous photography stuff, before Nikonians and Bo Stahlbrandt:
A Brief Love Story
Have a great time :-)
JRP (Founder & Administrator. Mainly at the north-eastern Mexican desert) Gallery, Brief Love Story
Please join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members who help this happen; upgrade.
Check our workshops at the Nikonians Academy and the Nikonians Photo Pro Shop
#2. "RE: macro lens debate" | In response to Reply # 0
LAST EDITED ON Jul-15-00 AT 06:11 AM (GMT)
LAST EDITED ON Jul-15-00 AT 06:10 AM (GMT)
I can only say the 60mm Micro is one of the best bargains in the Nikon line. It's also fast and small enough that I carry it instead a typical normal lens. I've used (and fortunately can borrow) the 105 Micro. The 105's longer focal length is great, but it's more expensive an is quite a bit larger than the 60. Micro Nikkors are some of the best lenses ever made.
I'm not familiar with the operation of the Tamron, but the Nikons provide both a focus limit switch, and a manual focus switch on the lens. Both of these features are VERY good to have when you're working with macro. Without the focus limit, you can give your camera's focus motor a real workout going from infinity to macro. You'll appreciate being able to switch to manual focus easily when working up close... the camera will do a lot of hunting and you'll find autofocus gets in the way in a lot of situations.
Salt Lake City, Utah
#3. "RE: macro lens debate" | In response to Reply # 0Boogaloo Basic MemberSun 16-Jul-00 01:13 AM
I just recently purchased the 60mm f/2.8 micro and I like it very much. When I was doing my research on which lens to get I read reviews that said all of the newer micro Nikors were very good, but the 60mm seemed to be the sharpest. Plus, the 60mm fills out my lenses nicely since I have a 17-35 and a 80-200, I use this lens as my normal. The only negatives that I can think of are that for a normal lens, it is larger, slower and much heavier than a 50mm 1.8 (although 2.8 is not slow by any means). The other is that at 1:1 RR the working distance of the lens is only a little over 8". Depending on what type of macro work you plan on doing, the added working room of the longer lenses may be important to you. It's hard to get within a foot of a dragonfly and have it wait for you to compose, focus and shoot before it flies away unless you give him a little siesta in the refrigerator first Hope this helps.