Seeking advice: Nikon 60mm micro 2.8G vs D

[PeterN]

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.

[Jakov Minić]

GGGGGGG
I don't have it but I used it and loved it!
It's bitingly sharp!
If only I could use it properly...

[FredCrowBear]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Akira]

I used the D, and also found the WD at closest ranges was too short.  Also, the fat lens barrel made the lighting tricky.

[PeterN]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

...
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.

[PeterN]

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).

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Erik Lund]

The new 60mm AFS G is nicer In all aspects. Fantastic sharpness and  Bokeh

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 

[Jan Anne]

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.

[simsurace]

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.