105 micro vs 60 micro

Started Sep 13, 2002 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
jhaze Regular Member • Posts: 229
105 micro vs 60 micro

After shooting years with a dozen or more Canon FD lenses, the 100mm f4 macro turned out to be one of my fav lenses. I used it without the extension tube with film cameras. I have a 50m macro as well, but I hardly ever used it after the 100.

Nice lens. Actually I broke a lot of rules. I used it for ordinary shots, portraits etc. I never used a bellows, rarely a macro stage, avoided flash, and usually- yes, not even a tripod (just too heavy on hikes). I don't mind using a tripod if really needed- I have about 7 or 8 of these too and have used them in the past a lot- but never handy when I need one these days being old and lazy.

But I should say I never went for photos of insects or flower stamins. Lot's of shots of broken alarm clocks, etc. That will give you a rough idea of the mag ratio. Maybe a 3-4 inch dia filling the frame at most.

The 50 macro drove me to distraction with subject distance, getting my shadow in the image.

So the question: people seem to like the 60 Nikon micro over the 105. Either for it's sharpness or it's focusing ability at infinity. How much a diff? Keeping in mind that eventuallly the S2's "160mm" macro will be a "105 macro" or the "90" a "60" with the s3(?), and that I really like my Canon 100 but not my 50, any suggestions or ideas? I tried out the 105 attached to a D100 in a store recently and liked it. TIA,
Jim H.

ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow