Seeking advice: Nikon 60mm micro 2.8G vs D

[PeterN]

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

[Erik Lund]

Only real issue with the 60 G up close is the very slim depth of focus...

[Daniel Bliss]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[Wannabebetter]

redacted

[Wannabebetter]

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.)

[Wannabebetter]

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! )

[Bjørn Jorde]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Kitanikkor]

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.....

[Øivind Tøien]

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?

[Hugh_3170]

A Nikon to Canon EOS adapter I suspect.

[Kitanikkor]

yes....I took that shot a couple years ago before getting the 610...I used my Nikkors on many Canons with much pleasure.

[Erik Lund]

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.

[Øivind Tøien]

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.