Seeking advice: Nikon 60mm micro 2.8G vs D

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Bjørn J]

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.

[PeterN]

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.

[Mike G]

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

[Andrea B.]

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.

[PeterN]

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.

[Thomas G]

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.

[PeterN]

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.

[Bernard Delley]

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.

[PeterN]

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!

[PeterN]

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.

[Tord55]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Now, here are some close-ups with true character

[PeterN]

Now, here are some close-ups with true character

+!

[JJChan]

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