Nikkor Micro 85mm vs 60mm Lenses compared

[Natie]

Hi All,

I have the Nikon D90 and is looking at buying my first Micro lens mainly for portraits and nature subjects.
After reading some reviews online seems like I would have to choose between AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm F/2.8 G ED vs AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm F/3.5G ED VR.

Please help me decide...?!

[jwalsh]

If you plan to ever upgrade to an FX body in the 'near' future, maybe lean towards the FX lens. Otherwise if you are going to have that D90 or stick to DX shooting just grab the 85.

[Natie]

If you plan to ever upgrade to an FX body in the 'near' future, maybe lean towards the FX lens. Otherwise if you are going to have that D90 or stick to DX shooting just grab the 85.

Isnt the 60mm then better if planning for long-term? Since it can be used on a DX& FX body?

[Mark von Kanel]

Have you considered the 105? allows you more working distance for macro, im a Nikon fanboy but the sigma 105 beat the nik version in a recent review in Digital camera mag, p****d me off no end as id recently bought the nik version!

[Natie]

Hi Mark,

Is double the price really worth the extra working distance?

[Mark von Kanel]

Hi Renata. for an answer to that youd have to ask someone that has more experience in macro photography than i have. from what i read before buying the lens, this was the best focal length for the job, admittedly this year ive had more money than time and cost wasn't a consideration, next year im going to have lots more time to improve my photography but if its going to cost twice as much and budget is an issue then id probably go for the 85mm but your losing a stop sooo maybe the 105 is worth it.......

If youve heard the term all the gear and no idea then thats me next year i will change that.

mark

[Dons]

Between those two, I would go for the 60mm...

I have tried AF 60mm, AFS 60mm VR, AFS 85mm VR and AFS 105mm VR..
But now, I love my Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Renata,

I have the 105mm and the longer working distance is better for insects (although even 105mm isn't always enough).
If your 'macro' subjects are a little larger, e.g. flowers, then the 60mm would be fine.

I do enjoy it being an f/2.8 lens though, compared to my other lenses (zooms) at that focal length.

For portraits;
for snaps shots in restaurants, even the 50mm f/1.4 I have is too long (in focal length) across a table on a DX body, so the 105 is going to be way to long, it is also quite a large, heavy beast but then any long-ish, fast-ish lens will be.
I don't really shoot people, but a zoom is much more versatile.
With a D90, you might find there's an older model AF or AF-D you can use, but don't if you might consider a D5100, as they won't AF on one of them, but I guess the next step would be D7000, or higher, anyway.

I'm rambling, so I'll shut up now.

Cheers,

[jwalsh]

Isnt the 60mm then better if planning for long-term? Since it can be used on a DX& FX body?

My general idea is that if you ever think you are going to move up to an FX body buy those lenses now. Using a DX lens on a FX body is silly and if you end up with a lot of DX lenses and upgrade to FX you'll have to sell a lot of gear/replace things.

FX lenses work on DX bodies, they just appear more tele than they really are (multiply 1.5 x focal length for nikon), in that the edges are cropped out due to the smaller sensor. If you put a DX lens on an FX the FX body will just auto crop down the sensor to account for the smaller lens. So they work either way, but if you ever pay to move to the big sensor, the general idea is that you should use it. But if you are really happy with the DX lines and dont see yourself moving up to the FX bodies, then yes grab DX lenses.

[Dismayed]

I wouldn't worry about the possibility that an FX camera may be somewhere in your future. If you do eventually buy an FX camera you can just sell your DX lenses.