NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: PeterN on November 25, 2015, 20:17:49
-
I read conflicting reports about the G vs the D version of the nikon 60mm, esp. Wrt sharpness, light falloff in corners and CA.
Ming Rhein says that the G version is sharper and better CA handling.
Can anyone shed light on this?
I plan to use this lens for watch photography.
Thanks for your help.
-
GGGGGGG
I don't have it but I used it and loved it!
It's bitingly sharp!
If only I could use it properly...
-
I can't speak about the D version, but I have the G version and it is very sharp.
Just be advised that, as a 60mm lens, the working distances start to become very small as you approach 1:1.
I really like the 60mm G Micro
-
The D version has a short free working distance and the G even shorter. I would prefer using a longer lens for 1:1 shooting unless you are comfortable by backlit subjects only. There is hardly any free space to place lights with these 60 mm lenses for close work. Even a light tent can become troublesome because the lens starts to shade the subject.
-
I used the D, and also found the WD at closest ranges was too short. Also, the fat lens barrel made the lighting tricky.
-
Thank you for your help.
I will work with flash, diffusers and reflectors.
Main reason for going with 60mm is a bit more DOF compared to 105.
But it may be wise to try one first and see how comfortable it is to use in shooting watches and alike.
-
The AF-S version has more precise AF, and better sharpness at wide apertures at long distances (where the 60mm AF-D is good stopped down but not wide open IME). The AF-S version is well corrected for CA, and better bokeh as well. It is one of my favorite lenses, and has very good price-performance as well as being a great lens in absolute terms. I love to use it for documentary photos of people, as a travel "normal" lens and for nature details as well as technical close-ups. A truly general purpose lens with excellent image quality.
As the others have pointed out the working distance at 1:1 is very short, so I rarely use it for such tight close-ups even though the performance at 1:1 is good. By removing the hood, it is possible to use it at 1:1 and get some light to the subject but I typically use the 200mm AF D Micro for 1:1 work in nature, to get more working distance. For subjects requiring less magnification I really like the 60 AF-S.
-
...
Main reason for going with 60mm is a bit more DOF compared to 105.
...
Sorry, using a shorter focal length will NOT give you more depth of field. In the near range, depth of field depends mainly on magnification and aperture setting.
However, you WILL get a shorter working distance.
-
Sorry, using a shorter focal length will NOT give you more depth of field. In the near range, depth of field depends mainly on magnification and aperture setting.
However, you WILL get a shorter working distance.
Mmm. I may have misinterpreted DoF tables and Ming Thein's writeup on 60mm. Thank you!!
Even moe reason to try first.
Btw: I will probably not use the 60mm for 1:1 (which is why I also thought about zeiss planar or the PC-E lenses). However, the 60mm is more attractively priced and has some other advantages (for me).
-
Trust me on the 'dof' matter. The problem and confusion arise because simplified equations are pushed into the near range where they are unsuitable.
Also, do note that any meaningful comparison has to be based on measured magnification inside the imaged frame, *not* on distance to subject.
-
Sorry, using a shorter focal length will NOT give you more depth of field. In the near range, depth of field depends mainly on magnification and aperture setting.
However, you WILL get a shorter working distance.
True, but the shorter focal length and wider angle of view will magnify objects in the background less, so they will appear less blurred. The DOF (the part in focus) will be more or less the same with both lenses, but the background (the part out of focus) will appear less blurred/more defined with the shorter lens, so it might appear to have greater depth of field.
-
A less blurred background still is not perceived as sharp. Today's high resolution cameras show this very clearly. Not surprising as the "dof' concept is based on an illusion and while the illusion might have seemed plausible in the film days, these days it is breaking down if examined closely.
Besides, the dependency of any 'dof' on magnification of detail is so strong that focal length hardly matters (aperture does, but much less than commonly assumed). The complete equations should be consulted to assess this overlooked fact.
-
The new 60mm AFS G is nicer In all aspects. Fantastic sharpness and Bokeh :D
Only way to get more depth of field is to stop the lens further down or use focus stacking, there are many samples for focus stacking on this site ;)
-
Go for the G, much better investment for the future as many Nikon don't support AF with the AFD lenses anymore.
I owned the G and loved it, very versatile lens for macro, portrait, landscapes, etc and very portable.
-
Mmm. I may have misinterpreted DoF tables and Ming Thein's writeup on 60mm. Thank you!!
Even moe reason to try first.
Ming Thein has stated on multiple occasions that the 60mm gives him additional dof. However, some readers have pointed out to him in the comments that this is a classical misconception about how dof works, possibly due to a confusion with the background blur which is often called dof but in fact has very little to do with it. Despite his education in physics, he did not admit his mistake, which I found quite disappointing. Since his readership is quite large, throwing out statements like this has a lot of impact.
Dof in the near range will always be a problem and short lenses are not going to help you in that respect. They will however dramatically affect the subject-to-background relationship you can achieve, with short lenses showing more of the surrounding landscape.
-
I had the D for many years. Work and fun shooting.
When the G came I sold the D. The G is better in every respect:
1) fast and silent AF
2) great Bokeh also for Portraits
3) great rendering of fine tones esp. Skin
I feel the main difference is the feel of the results caused by rendering style
. The 60D is more technical, harsher. The 60G is a precision instrument
with a tad of warmth and softness and pleasency.
I hope you get the idea. I would never go back.
-
Btw: I will probably not use the 60mm for 1:1 (which is why I also thought about zeiss planar or the PC-E lenses). However, the 60mm is more attractively priced and has some other advantages (for me).
I previously had the D, but sold it and bought the G. The G is optically a little better. I mostly used them for reproduction of artwork (paintings), but after I got the 85mm PC-E the 60mm micro is rarely used now. For product photography the ability to manipulate (tilt) the focus plane is a huge advantage.
-
Thanks (again) for all valuable advice! Highly appreciated!!
Remarks regarding the lack of difference between DoF of 60mm and 105mm made me reconsider my plan to buy a 60mm lens. CA-handling might be another reason but I've read that the 60mm suffers from CA , just like the 105mm. So fo now I will hold off unless I find a really good deal on a 60mm G that I cannot resist (or a 85mm PC-E lens).
Regarding focus stacking: I like the flexibility of shooting w/o tripod so focus stacking will not always be possible.
-
I have the 60mmD version which I bought because it could take the Nikon slide copier and I don't think the 60mmAFS will!
The slide copier code is ES1
-
I have both the D and the G. I cannot see that the G is sharper than the D. On an informal basis they both seem equally sharp to me with the old D maybe have an edge over the G for some shots. Can't believe everything you read, gotta test for yourself if a small sharpness edge is important.
As several have mentioned, when you work really close you lose so much DoF that it is irrelevant whether you use a 60 or a 105.
I don't know why macros tend to have CA, but both the D and G have some. Easily cured in an editor, however.
For hand held close-ups outdoors, I like a 60mm length. Indoors where you need artificial illumination a 90 or 105mm focal length is probably more useable.
Anyway either the D or G will serve you well. Take under consideration purchase price, repairability and resale value to make a decision.
Don't forget to consider the Sigma or Tamron line when looking for a macro. There is a Tamron 90 which is quite nifty, but I do not remember which 90 it is at the moment.
-
Thank you, Mike and Andrea. Since I have tons of slides from my parents to process, the 60mm might be a good addition.
Regarding watches: for now I will work with the 105mm. Tried the SB900 and R1C1 set today with the 105mm. Just wanted to see how the everything worked in commander mode. Sooooo easy. And convenient compared to the manual setup I was used to.
-
I own two dedicated macro lenses, the 60mm G version and a (manual) 90mm Tokina.
The 90mm has a very nice off focus image rendition. It's quite slow to use, it's quite big and extends a lot if focussing
close and comes with an extender for 1:1.
I like it a lot but do not carry it along so much. In fact very seldom at all.
I take it outdoor but mostly for gardening (shooting in the garden).
The 60mm G on the other hand is a very versatile lens.
Even with internal focussing it's not to big and of acceptable weight.
It's sharp, has good color rendition and focusses well manually and on AF.
It works good on all distances.
I use it for repro work (ie slides) and in museums. Sometimes on DX bodies for more reach.
It's in my small 'universal' travel bag, often partnering with a 28, a 50/1.8 (for low light) and a 105.
I have a liking for lenses which can focus close and the 60 G does that perfectly well.
The capability for free hand macros of flowers and the like is well developed.
-
Thank you, Thomas!
I've looked into some solutions for slide reproduction and that opened a whole new world to me. May save considerable time compared to renting/using a scanner.
-
some time ago I had a post relating DoF to the reduction ratio from object to image http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38233901
This is based on the 'full' lens equation, including principal planes. The latter drop out when working with the magnification/reduction ratio, but complicate things when calculating DoF from object -- image plane distance.
(The aperture-ratio is the true ratio as shown for the AFS 60mm Micro Nikkor or the old compensating 55m f/3.5 Micro Nikkor)
The small correction due to exit pupil for tele- and retro-focus lenses are omitted. The details of the blur (bokeh) intensity function depend on the lens and are not tractable at the level of the ideal lens system.
The graphs show that focal length does not affect DoF unless its approaching the the hyperfocal regime.
-
some time ago I had a post relating DoF to the reduction ratio from object to image http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38233901
This is based on the 'full' lens equation, including principal planes. The latter drop out when working with the magnification/reduction ratio, but complicate things when calculating DoF from object -- image plane distance.
(The aperture-ratio is the true ratio as shown for the AFS 60mm Micro Nikkor or the old compensating 55m f/3.5 Micro Nikkor)
The small correction due to exit pupil for tele- and retro-focus lenses are omitted. The details of the blur (bokeh) intensity function depend on the lens and are not tractable at the level of the ideal lens system.
The graphs show that focal length does not affect DoF unless its approaching the the hyperfocal regime.
Thank you for the link. But I am afraid it is a bit complicated for someone like me. Nevertheless, I will try!
-
After some further thinking based on your suggestions and experience (thank you!) I did order the 60mm lens. I think it's a nice addition for the 105mm. The PC-E 85mm will probably follow next year or when a great offer arises.
-
Go for the G, much better investment for the future as many Nikon don't support AF with the AFD lenses anymore.
I owned the G and loved it, very versatile lens for macro, portrait, landscapes, etc and very portable.
I concur with Jan, totally! I have the 40, the 60, and the 85 VR macros, and use them all on both my FX and my CX cameras.
The 60 is not very useful on the CX cameras, but the other two are superb!
Shots below taken with my D600, in this order: the tiny wonder 40 (supposedly not for FX, but I find no problems with it), 85 VR (at times it needs a bit of cropping, but this photo is not), and the 60.
-
Now, here are some close-ups with true character :D
-
Now, here are some close-ups with true character :D
+!
-
Just something else to consider:
At the very close end, hard to tell the two apart.
At distance and medium distance, the G seems warmer and the bokeh better with the old D seemingly etched with harsher bokeh. The G is a better and more neutral lens.
I traded the D when the G came out. My G after daily use (I use it at work for skin lesions) now fails to focus around the 50cm distance and I have to manually focus it. The D is far better made (even though my G is MIJ) and more likely to be around when your AFs motor dies. If you are only using for medium to close distance, the D should be more reliable and almost indistinguishable from the G.
J
-
Thank you, J.
I do now have the G and will use it for watch and product photography, so indeed close distance. Chroma handling is especially important and that's something the G seems to do pretty well especially compared to the 105
-
Only real issue with the 60 G up close is the very slim depth of focus...
-
I have the 60mmD version which I bought because it could take the Nikon slide copier and I don't think the 60mmAFS will!
The slide copier code is ES1
The ES1 works just fine with the G for copying, fully retracted too, which is convenient (no worries about alignment or anything). I have the G, which I recently bought used from KEH. I'd bought one earlier in the year but returned it because it was misaligned. This one seems to be fine. Needs stopping down a stop or so for the best results for slide copying. f4.8 is max close up, f7.1 though 10 seems to work for copying where you really do need to nail it right into the corners. But the full run of the aperture range can be had just a few inches from closest focus (leaving aside diffraction limitations, though diffraction somehow seems to be less offensive with this lens than others). Never really considered the D as I wanted something that would deliver the goods near and far, acuity, bokeh and all.
-
I have both versions of this lens. I used the “D” model to shoot 33,000 rock n’ roll concert posters on a vacuum board that I built myself, and it did a great job.
I prefer not to have G” lenses, but still have a few. I like both versions of the 60mm Macro-Nikkor, but have a sense that the old “D” has something the newer one does not, but I can’t prove it myself. I use neither of them much, except on an old Polaroid copy stand, where they are great, but they are not highly corrected enough for my regular nature work.
-
redacted
-
A less blurred background still is not perceived as sharp. Today's high resolution cameras show this very clearly. Not surprising as the "dof' concept is based on an illusion and while the illusion might have seemed plausible in the film days, these days it is breaking down if examined closely.
It was in fact, quite plausible at the time! While the media has changed, [human] cortical perception has remained constant. Rather, it's the emergent subjective expectations imposed upon the host viewer that is in flux. In short: There's no accounting for taste. Last year's bokeh gives way to this year's garish, HD wedding album. However, your point is well taken and, more so, clearly understood. (Well, I get it anyway. If that's any kind of indicator.)
-
I have both versions of this lens. I used the “D” model to shoot 33,000 rock n’ roll concert posters on a vacuum board that I built myself, and it did a great job.
I prefer not to have G” lenses, but still have a few. I like both versions of the 60mm Macro-Nikkor, but have a sense that the old “D” has something the newer one does not, but I can’t prove it myself. I use neither of them much, except on an old Polaroid copy stand, where they are great, but they are not highly corrected enough for my regular nature work.
Which did "a great job": the D-lens or the vacuum board? (I suspect, both! :D)
-
I was in the same boat (looking for a 60mm macro), and decided to get a used D version.
I like the fact that is has an aperture ring and that the front element is deeply recessed, which allows me to use it without a hood most of the time. Also, the D versions can be had fairly inexpensive used these days.
I don't doubt the G version is the better lens, but the D works for me.
If you haven't handled both, I would try them out before deciding.
BJ
-
An old, beaten up Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 D has been my workhorse for studio product shots for years. It allows good quality even when stopped far down, which is not the usual behaviour of the Micro-Nikkors. Just avoid a nominal f/32 and you'll be fine. The recessed front element helps a lot to mitigate flare with my studio flashes.
-
Picked this up for $30....no AF (glued-locked) but MF works great....also has an odd ring I think for attaching a ring light or something like that.....
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg651%2F346%2Fbarrl.jpg&hash=42e5ca9ef5cd19e6333b54130c059dc2b78b39e3)
-
The M-A ring on this lens has a tendency to crack and eventually come apart as in other AF lenses with the same mechanism. I have taped mine in manual position with a generous amount of electrical tape after I discovered beginning cracks. So do not feel bad about not having AF if it is otherwise OK, securing the M-A ring will likely prevent it from going bad in the future. Performance is anyway not that good at distance where AF is most useful.
It looks like there is a thin extension ring or adapter at the mount?
-
A Nikon to Canon EOS adapter I suspect.
-
yes....I took that shot a couple years ago before getting the 610...I used my Nikkors on many Canons with much pleasure.
-
The M-A ring on this lens has a tendency to crack and eventually come apart as in other AF lenses with the same mechanism. ...
Only for the very early lenses I believe, I think there was a silent upgrade by Nikon where they changed the material for the AF/M rings, since I have never ever seen a lens with this design that was even starting to crack at the lock.
-
My AF 60/2.8 is is pre-D version, so that fits well. The crack was subtle and had probably been there for a long time, but I followed Bjørn's warning as I hardly ever used AF on this lens.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fotoien.zenfolio.com%2Fimg%2Fs2%2Fv4%2Fp25502926.jpg&hash=37671c40c15a217d4548ec2b6894b9c5ee2f12e7)
-
i would probably choose the D. it has an aperture ring which you will find useful when you use it with bellows :o :o :o
the D version also is fully mechanical apart from the D chip so servicing one yourself is possible with risking any damage to the electronics that need calibration from the factory.
the one thing I hated with my D was it just loves to attract dirt as there are several places where it can get into the objective.
i hated the 60mm for shooting bugs for the fact that getting too close would scare them, however the perspective does look lovely because the 105 has a tendency to make things look flat.
as for the G. tested it a lot throughout the years but just cannot justify buying one. i do not like the exposed front element as it might get tree sap when i shoot in the jungle. it does feel sharper but i really cannot tell both the D and F apart at macro distances.
the AF-D is also really noisy!
-
Picked this up for $30....no AF (glued-locked) but MF works great....also has an odd ring I think for attaching a ring light or something like that.....
Congratulations!
30 US$ is very cheap for a working 60D Micro with clean glass. I the macro domain I use MF most of the time. I got mine for 205 € new and sold it for 275 € a few years later after ~100.000 clicks...
-
FF: Macro IS mostly slow going anyway...for me at least....so the MF-only limitation works just fine for me.
-
i have seen that ring before, just not sure where :o :o :o