Would you trade a Nikkor 60mm Micro for Sigma 105 Macro?

Started Jul 21, 2004 | Discussions thread
Chris101 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,945
Re: Closeup lens

The +2 and +3 close up lenses are like filters. They are actually positive meniscus lenses that screw into the threads in the front of the lens. They don't cut down the f/stop and can be quickly removed or changed. I tried extension tubes, but they just don't work with the 24-120vr.

You can get a 'cheapie' set of three for around $60 US, which are probably pretty close to the B+Ws optically, but I paid $60 a piece for thes B+Ws, cause I hate when filters get stuck (and B+Ws never stick.) The Canon 500D is a fancier type lens attachment that uses two element lens and is better for focal lengths over 135mm and apertures of f/2.8 or wider.

To get even greater magnification, you can stack two closeup lenses as long as the stronger lens is on the outside.

stdavid wrote:

stdavid wrote:

Chris101 wrote:
No I don't use a 500D, although with a longer, faster lens I
probably would prefer one. I use +2 (same magnification as the
500D) and +3 screw on 'filter type' close up lenses. These are
simple (single element) lenses whereas the 500D is an achromatic
doublet. I do not see any chromatic aberation, nor coma with these
closeup lenses on the 24-120vr lens however.

Here is an example of using the +3 and +2 stacked:

And this one is just the +3:

And the +2:

I find this to be a very efficient and cost effective macro system.

Ralph Nevins wrote:
which closeup lens(es?) do you use ? 500D ?
been thinking about that on on a 300mm F4 and wondering what kind
of distance i could get ...
i understand on a 80-200mm it is roughly 18-20in working dist.
& nope cant guess the pic

Chris101 wrote:
(same caveat re: no sigma macro experience)
I no longer use my 60mm for macrophotography. It hunts for focus
in AF mode and my D100 doesn't have a focussing screen for focus
optimization. And like you said, it scares away bugs and things. I
use closeup lenes on a 24-120vr zoom now, and I much prefer that
for hand-held macros.

The 60 mm is perfect for flat art photography like paintings,
drawings, handwritten documents. I get optimum field flatness and
by aligning with a mirror, perfect squareness with no distortion.
Plus the image is extremely sharp. I can shoot up to 7 feet away
and still be in the focus 'sweet-spot".

That said, it is fun just to shoot everyday stuff at 1:1 and play
"What is It?":

Ralph Nevins wrote:
caveat : i can't say anything about the Sigma 105 2.8

I bought the Nikon 105mm last summer figuring i'd need the distance
got a 60mm (used) last fall (at a price i couldn't pass up)
i have hardly used the 60mm - it is just too close & i scare my
subjects away

Steve Ridges wrote:

I've got the Niikor 60mm Micro lens. I've been wanting to get a
105 for the increased working distance. Someone has offered to
trade me the Sigma 105 2.8 lens. Would you do it? How sharp is
it? How does it compare to the Nikkor 105 or Tameron SP90?


Geat Shots!!
Are you adding these +2 or +3 rings to the( 24-120) . It isn't
clear to me? I want tu buy a 105mm but after seeing your shots it
gives me pause big time!!

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