Macro lenses Zuiko 60mm vs Nikkor 105mm

[selig1656]

Which way to go , I love and have much to learn on macro shooting. I have a budget of $600 . I own an Oylmpus E -620 a 4/3 and a newly purchased Nikon D7100 . After reviewing I narrowed it down to A Nikkor 85 f/3. with VR , compared to a Zuiko 60mm. Based on the body and pixels where to I go for the best results and for enlargement of the prints. This lenses will also be used for serious portrait shots . The Nikon crop factor is I beleve 1.5 and with the Olympus is 2.. There are those that hold a 50mm is the way to go . but with somw macro I need to consider the distance to the subject as being accessible and without causing interference .Any suggestions would be helpful .

[xpatUSA]

The lenses can be compared here:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1301/cat/12

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1567/cat/14

Bear in mind that quoted angles of view are for diagonals and that the sensors have different aspect ratios. I myself would compare the angles for the heights and nominal focal lengths but not everybody will agree with that. Still, I will blunder onwards:

Sensor heights are 15.6mm and 13mm. Therefore, vertical angles of view are 10.5 deg and 12.4 deg for the Nikon and the Olympus. A slight difference.

At closest focusing, the distance from sensor to subject is 286mm for Nikon. 190mm for Olympus. Quite a difference - but camera plus lens length must be considered so as to know the "working distance" from lens to subject.

The Olympus tests sharper for macro work and gets better points in the links above.

For portrait work, the Nikon has 9 blades for better bokeh perhaps.

But both lens might be longer than some people here would prefer for portraits. The focal length is particularly important in protrait work, especially faces. Too short and you get the 'big nose' effect; too long and the face looks flat (all to do with perspective distortion). In between those extremes lies the "perfect" focal length for portraits. Since I don't shoot portraits, I'll let others here tell you what that focal length is

[Stagecoach]

Ted has given you the subject to sensor working distances so it should not be too difficult to work out the lens front to subject distances. Working distance is going to depend upon what you shoot and how close you feel safe being able to get to some subjects.

I use a 105mm (314mm subject to sensor) on a crop sensor camera and I would not want to own a shorter FL than this as my only macro.

If I had to make the choice at the top of my list would be one with VR for the great advantage it has when hand holding at 1:1.

[jcuknz]

Since I normally use a lens much longer than Grahame's I would look sideways at such a short lens as 60 or even 85. I can work between 500 and 300mm from the subject with my rigs since I do not own a macro lens but rather add a moderate two dioptre close-up lens to my 430mm or 280mm* zooms... with the 430 this results in a 38mm subject filling the sensor, the 280 is not so good. I also have auto-extension tubes as a less favored method.
* on my MFT GH2.
Though the tubes did get me this ....

But for average subjects I encounter the CU lens on the end of my zoom is the easiest way to work.
A hurried snap after I saw this fellow in the sink .....

While I do not have a macro lens I believe that it is a modern convenience tool with limited ability. Though as to if you need more is a mute point

[Stagecoach]

While I do not have a macro lens I believe that it is a modern convenience tool with limited ability.

One could also say John that placing CU lenses on the front of a lens is a 'convenience'. The difference being that one convenience will give you better images than the other convenience depending upon the standards each individual considers acceptable to themselves.

As for 'limited ability', ability to do what?

[DanK]

What kind of macro? For live bugs, I've used both 60mm and 100mm on a crop sensor, and based on that experience, I prefer the 100 and no longer use the 60 for bugs at all. The working distance is very short.

The reach of the lens--how far away you can be and still fill the frame with a given subject--is a function of the sensor size. However, the minimum working distance of a macro lens is NOT a function of the sensor size--if is a function of the focal length and design of the lens only.

[jcuknz]

One could also say John that placing CU lenses on the front of a lens is a 'convenience'. The difference being that one convenience will give you better images than the other convenience depending upon the standards each individual considers acceptable to themselves.

As for 'limited ability', ability to do what?

What a lot of delightful codswallop and bias. Firstly macro lens only go to 1:1 or half that ... though there are some that go further ... but as I said if you need it ..... I believe that you yourself use a macro lens and extension tubes because obviously they are deficient for what you do.

The quality of cheap gear is often abysmal and this applies to CU lenses as any other gear. People had been doing macro, true macro, for decades before the macro lens came on the market. If one organised oneself before the ready availability of the macro lens one has little need for one and the macro lens is not exactly cheap, so for occasional use is questionable expenditure. So it is worthwhile to familarise oneself with the long established alternatives. As to which convenience produces the better image does depend on the operator and circumstances.

[Stagecoach]

I believe that you yourself use a macro lens and extension tubes because obviously they are deficient for what you do..

John, I will not continue with this one because it is raised every time a 'which macro lens' thread comes up . Yes we all know there are alternatives, and some will always be happy with alternatives.

[Mike Buckley]

I probably won't get into the discussion other than to point out that the OP's post asks about comparing the Zuiko 60mm and the Nikkor 85mm yet the thread title compares the Zuiko 60mm and the Nikkor 105mm. So, I'm not sure for which comparison the OP is seeking help.

[jcuknz]

Whatever our differences of opinions Grahame I trust and hope you have a safe bolt-hole to be in as Cyclone PAM bears down or hopefully passes you by She looks to be a real hum-dinger ... class 5

[rpcrowe]

I have no experience with either of these lenses. However, a rule of thumb for me, regarding lenses for portraiture, is that Bokeh (the QUALITY not the AMOUNT) of the out of focus areas is an important concern.

I like a very smooth, creamy, looking bokeh whether the portrait is of a dog or a person. This shot was done with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at 165mm @ f/5.6. This is my favorite lens for dog and people portraiture.



A rough or ragged appearing bokeh like the Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mark II, "nifty fifty" produces can be distracting to the subject. One of the worse examples of IMO horrible bokeh is the doughnut shaped highlights the you get when using a mirror lens. Thankfully, portrait work is not often done using a mirror lens. I have seen some relatively cheap zoom lenses that also produce ragged bokeh...

[selig1656]

I truly appreciate the feedback. The main subjects being photographed are flowers and the insects, also the fine craft usually in wood work and gems jewlery , the fine details in their designs. A serious portrait shooter I am far from at this juncture . I need to further evaluate the emphasis on bokeh. Do i need to take the speed of focusing into account especially when dealing with insects , I believe that here the Zuiko is better.

[rpcrowe]

Raymond, re: your question: "Do i need to take the speed of focusing into account especially when dealing with insects , I believe that here the Zuiko is better."

I am always the guy who states that auto focus lenses do a better job in focusing than do manual focus lenses. I often forget to, but I should always qualify that statement.

I, and many other photographers, do much of my macro focusing manually. Often I focus by moving the camera back and forth. This is not to say that I NEVER use auto focus when shooting macros, only that speed of auto focus is less critical (for me) when shooting macros than when shooting "normal" imagery...

I shoot macros using a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP AF macro lens. The speed of A/F on that lens is abysmally slow since it has a long way to travel from minimum focus to infinity focus. It is also fairly loud in A/F mode... However, that slower and noisy A/F doesn't bother me a bit. I like the lens especially since I purchased it, used on eBay, many years ago for under $100 U.S. Dollars. Less than the price of a good set of extension tubes...

[selig1656]

After listening to great advice and again thank you to all , I am leaning towards the Nikkor 105mm VR , with a crop factor of 1.5 and it seems that image wise I might get more from the Nikon D7100 Vs. the older model Olympus E-620 .They both good solid lenses and should have little trouble with aberrations and any distortions.AH , the agony of decisions . I might rent both and test them out as for sharpness the Zuiko does have an advantage in fine details .