60mm or 105mm macro?

hi all!

i purchased a nikon d80 in december, and i am excited about eventually taking it underwater (as soon as i can afford a housing). i have shot pics underwater for 3 years using an olyc5060, so i have some experience.

anyways, i love macro photography, both underwater and above. i have been accumulating a few multi-purpose lenses (50mm f1.8, 18-70mm vr & 70-300vr) and now i would like to get a macro lens.

i don't know which one to pick.

i would like one that i can use for above and underwater.

can anyone give me their experiences with both lenses and what would be the benefits of both lenses?

i would be willing to eventually buy both lenses, but i can only get one this year for sure.

thanks a bunch!

michele

Hi and welcome,

This question has been asked a few times previously and is probably worth a 'search' in the archives.

But as I recall it comes down to a number of factors.

One of the main ones will be where you live or dive and how clear the water is. If like me your local water is somewhat murkey then the 60mm maybe better as you are reducing the subject to lens distance. Having said that as you are closer you will tend to scare off the more flighty subjects !

The 60mm on a crop format camera such as the D80 also makes a decent fish portrait lens where the 105 with it's bigger magnification is less use for fish portraits.

The other thing presently with the current Nikon lineup is the introduction of the faster focusing HSM versions of the 105mm and I think the 60mm also now.

If you go for the 105mm with the HSM check that your housing supports it as I believe that it is a 'fatter' lens and will not fit in all housings.

There has been some debate as to if the faster focus is actually any benefit at all in the water but the bottom line is the the slower focus lens also works fine and will be available either second hand or maybe at a knockdown new price, so if price is an issue then...

FWIW I have the (slow focus) 60mm and have been happy with it. It does pretty good macro on land also.

Paul C

I have used both lenses and have found the 60mm lens to focus faster. However, you need to be closer to the subject to acheive the same magnification as the 105mm. Being closer can interfere with the subjects zone of tolerance.

I think you will be happy with a 60mm lens.

HI,

I would also go for the 60mm lens, it does give you two options not just macro

but can be used as a lens to get use to under water photography. With good results

from the start.Also smaller port than the 105.

Andy

I've put a few 105mm images on the "Palau" post in "Galleries". I left my 60mm behind and it was a struggle to get decent results from the 105mm: worth it, but a struggle.

The 60mm allows you to get images that are just as good, but you are that bit closer, so macro fish shots are more difficult: other shots are better as there is less backscatter and they are easier to light.

If you are going to have one, it's the 60mm. If you're rich, have both! I'm pleased that I got the 105mm working in the end, but I did miss a lot of shots that would have been straightforward with a 60mm.

Tim

B)

thanks to everyone that has offered their opinions. i appreciate it very much!

i am curious as to why it is more difficult to get a good shot with the 105mm?

i figured it may be a bit easier than with the 60mm because you don't have to get as close to the fish.

again, thanks for the input!

michele

i am curious as to why it is more difficult to get a good shot with the 105mm?

i figured it may be a bit easier than with the 60mm because you don't have to get as close to the fish.

Right up until you spook the fish closer is better. I would go so far as to say that reducing the amount of water between you and the victim is always good - it is why wide angle shots can look better than reality!

I have taken quite a few shots where the composition is OK but they just lack contrast and well look blah - reason- too far away - water column degrades, changes and defuses light.

For fish portraits you will be further away with a 105 which equals backscatter in murky water. The added distance means that you need to turn the power on the strobes right up - more problems with backscatter etc.

Portrait shots can be done with this lens and can be stunning ( wasn't Alex's head on snappers done with a 105? ). And if he says it was a tough shot then it is beyond me.

Paul C

If you want to get the best from both options (almost) you can use the 60 mm with converters (X1.4, X1.7 or X2)

I use the 60 + X2 Kenko, it's give me macro 1:1 at equal 120 mm (minus two stops) or 1:2 macro at 60mm

The AF with the converter is not so good so I use it usually on MF and you need another port /extension of course.

Another vote for the 60. I find it hunts less for focus and is more versatile. You can do fish portraits, nudis, shrimp, etc. with ease.

Good luck!

I faced your same decision and ended up buying the 105. I have had good results (www.scubarews.com) so far, but agree with the other postings. It is great for macro and little fish because you don't have to get so close you scare them. But very hard for decent size fish portraits. I also have the 12-24 for wide angle and I am planning to get the new 60mm for fish protraits Without it, it is hard to get the in between shots.

I live in the desert and have used the 105 to take some wonderful desert wildflower shots this summer. I like the lens and think it is a great macro option.

If you can only get one, then the 60 mm. More versatile. Can shoot larger subjects. Both do 1:1. With the new Af-S the 105 Afs much faster. You might want to wait until the new AF-S 60 is available. I suspect that it will be a winner.

To add to what i wrote earlier:

specific problems with the 105mm -

1) AF hunting: small movements set the AF off again after focus is achieved

2) small depth of field, making choice of the focus area critical

3) narrow angle of view: it can be very difficult to point the lens in the right direction without a lot of practice

4) the size of the lens drags the housing downwards: the lens is usually pointing below the subject

5) strobes need to be positioned well forward, alongside the body of the lens port

Tim

B)

Hi All,

I have both Lenses.

Land:

The 105mm is fantastic above water.

UW:

I tend mostly to use the 60mm. I basically only use the 105mm when I exactly know to shoot and that it tends to keep distance.

The narrow anglem of view is much more troublesome below the surface.

/Erik

Anyone know what Sea & Sea Port will hold the AF-S 60?

I think everyone already said everything ... Couple other consideration factors.

- Warm water, better vis, less backscatter, easier to use w/ 105 and can shoot further away from subject.

- Cold water, typical 12~18ft vis, if u add a 1.5 ft dirty water between, doesn't matter how great the lenses is, it's going to be messy. So 60mm is much easier to use and better result in a typical day in cold water.

- 60mm, much easier to use and can shoot close or away.

I shoot w/ a 60mm a couple years before buying the 105VR and I think I did the right thing.