Nikon 60 mm AF-S micro

I had a chance to shoot the new Nikon 60 mm AF-S micro. Lens was very nice. AF seemed very good with the D2X. Not too fast as is sometimes noted with the 105 VR AF-S.

I used the Subal 60 mm FP on AF. One Ikelite DS-125 strobe.Catalina 2008

I shoot this Blue banded gobi. I could never get these with the old 60 mm micro. Always had to use the 105 before. The excellent AF allowed this shot to be made.

Dave, the pictures are great! I really like the Navanax perspective. I've never really got down on their level. I do for the nudi's, so I don't know why. That's something I'm gonna have to try.

Nice sharp BBG as well!

Dave, the pictures are great! I really like the Navanax perspective. I've never really got down on their level. I do for the nudi's, so I don't know why. That's something I'm gonna have to try.

 

Nice sharp BBG as well!

I've been shooting with this lens on the D70 and find it very fast. Ken Rockwell has a review of it on his site and claims that it is not reliable on a D3 or D300 like it is on the older cameras. I don't have either a D3 or D300 to test. Any experience?

I shot this lens for the first time yesterday and I have to say I agree with Dave. I was hoping to conclude that it offered little more over the old lens (to save me from having to buy one) - but the AF was excellent (faster and accurate) with my D2X and really seemed a step on from the older lens. Bugger!

I'll post some pictures when I get a chance.

Alex

I now shoot the d300 with the 60 afs, great lens, sometimes you have to push the af button to get it tto change from close to far focus, but works great otherwise.

Any comments on the benefits and disadvantages of this lens compared to the 105 micro? I imagine that the 60 micro has greater depth of field, but a shorter working distance, but before buying one of these two lenses, I'd like to hear what experienced users have to say.

I shot this lens for the first time yesterday and I have to say I agree with Dave. I was hoping to conclude that it offered little more over the old lens (to save me from having to buy one) - but the AF was excellent (faster and accurate) with my D2X and really seemed a step on from the older lens. Bugger!

 

I'll post some pictures when I get a chance.

 

Alex

I thought the AF on the old 60mm was fast enough, at least on my D80. Was there something about the old 60mm you didn't like that the new one fixed? in addition, I read the new 60mm gives you 1:1 macro at a working distance 1 inch closer than the old one, that can't be good, right?

scott

I thought that the AF speed on the 60mm was fast enough--until I tried this one. I agree with Alex its much faster. There are advantages and disadvantages to this lens. See the review/comparison on www.kenrockwell.com. He isn't looking at it from an underwater photographer's point of view and we have special reasons why the 60mm is one of the most useful lenses out there.

Personally, I think that the old 60mm is just fine. But I agree that the new one is better. I bought the new one primarially because it simplifies my port setup with the Ikelite modular port system.

As for the 60 vs 105mm question. These are two very different tools. I use the 105mm if I want true macro--near or beyond 1:1 with skittish subjects (which is almost everything). The 60mm is better if you want fish portraits of average sized fish. With the 105mm (at appropriate distances for lighting and sharpness) you mostly get fish heads. Its perfect for gobies and christmas tree worms and sea horses. Most underwater photogs have both.

The 105mm is the harder of the two to use and the less veristile. Focusing is harder, needs a focus light generally, and finding subjects is harder. The 60mm is lots of fun and can get 1:1 for stationary subjects.

As was covered above.

Lens focuses faster and is at least as sharp as the old 60 mm. On both the D2X and the D300.

It has better bokeh (if that is the correct word and I used it correctly) than the old 60. Design of the aperture blades??

I post the photo of the blue banded gobi as this a photo that I have never gotten with the old 60 despite many tries. The faster AF makes the difference.

The close focusing distance is closer but the lens is shorter. I think it all works out about the same.

As mentioned by others the 105 is for small skittish subjects. In this it will get you shots that a 60 mm will not. For all other shots I think the 60 mm micro is better.

I do not own a D3 so I can't say which would be better on that camera. However back in my film days I still preferred the 60 mm about 2/3rds of the time.

So what do you do when you have your 60mm (or worse, your 105mm) set up, and come across a curious white tip shark, or a large sleeping nurse shark you wish to photograph? And then, the "once in a lifetime" (for some) shot of a Manta or Whale(shark)? Does physics make it impossible to capture the entire animal in such a way that a family member (vs. photo mag) could enjoy what you saw?

Do you just skip the shot and enjoy the creature, or do you change the settings (to what) and hope for the best by swimming up close to take the picture? Or do you decide to take a macro shot and simply photograph a head, or a fin?

Does physics make it impossible to capture the entire animal in such a way that a family member (vs. photo mag) could enjoy what you saw?

 

Do you just skip the shot and enjoy the creature...

Yup! Especially with a 105mm; this shot was very lucky:

Tim

B)

If you take a macro lens UW and see a whale you shoot it's eye.

Yes, you have to guess which lens to take down. It's why UW photographers like zoom lenses.

On a trip to LaPaz we hadn't seen too much. I switched from the 12-24 to the 17-55. Next time in the water we get a pod of killer whales up very close. I got some nice shots but they lack impact and sharpness. I would have gotten those shots if I had left on the 12-24.