Ok, I know there have been countless posts on the merit of the 60mm vs. the 105mm and vice versa... and yes it would be great to have BOTH... but as someone who is about to spend way too much money to house my D90 I need options on ONE macro lens.
I am leaning towards the new Nikon 85mm as it seems to have the benefit of a little longer working distance than the 60 and maybe a bit of the easy of use that the 60 seems to have over the 105.
I do like the composition of the 105 more than the 60 which is the only reason I am not just going for the 60 to begin with.
Any opinions?
Oh the other lens I will be using for the time being is the Tokina 11-16, if that matters.
Cheers,
Chris
Why not the Tokina 35mm micro???
Sorry don't wanna add to the confusion... just a joke.
I don't know depends how are your feelings for FX.
If you see yourself upgrading soon or having an FX body for topside this might take the AF 85mm/2.8DX out of that list.
Maybe you will have a chance to sell your D90 with that lens later on.
By the D90 alone I would choose the 85mm, good average of the 2 with a good working distance for macro.
Good Luck!
What 85 are you looking at? the vr?
Ok, I know there have been countless posts on the merit of the 60mm vs. the 105mm and vice versa... and yes it would be great to have BOTH... but as someone who is about to spend way too much money to house my D90 I need options on ONE macro lens.
I am leaning towards the new Nikon 85mm as it seems to have the benefit of a little longer working distance than the 60 and maybe a bit of the easy of use that the 60 seems to have over the 105.
I do like the composition of the 105 more than the 60 which is the only reason I am not just going for the 60 to begin with.
Any opinions?
Oh the other lens I will be using for the time being is the Tokina 11-16, if that matters.
Cheers,
Chris
It also be good to know what type of water you mostly shoot in and what subject matter you hope to capture.
It is f/3.5 not f/2.8 and slightly longer than the 60 micro. It is interal focusing, VR, ED, VR, etc. The 1:1 cf is about 100 mm longer than the 60. That is my complaint about the 60; not enough working distance at 1:1. The 105 on a DX is like 135: ~ 160 mm; a little long sometimes. The 85 is 135: ~ 129 mm. So if the reviews are good, it could be interesting.
!BUT! I would wait until some housing reps set this up for manual focusing (it's an S so AF should be fast) and port (only 10 mm longer than the 60 mm).
Bob
I shoot mostly in So. Cal and SE Asia.
I think I will end up with the new 85mm... I am purchasing a Nauticam housing for the D90 and am pretty sure it will fit in their port options for the 105mm.
At some point I would assume they will have a manual focus ring available for it, but in the meantime AF should be usable... from what I hear about the newer versions of the 105 and 60, the 85 should be the same if not better.
I'm using both the 105VR and the older 60mm in the Lembeh Straits almost every day.
The 60mm is almost always fine with AF. I'd say I switch the 105 to MF about 30% of the time. It is fast but sometimes so fast it cannot lock on the subject and the constant backwards and forwards occasionally makes me feel seasick! (I bet Nikon never thought of that one). And sometimes it just gets lost and won't try to focus at all. I then have to switch direction and get the lens back into focussing on something - anything!
Ok, I know there have been countless posts on the merit of the 60mm vs. the 105mm and vice versa... and yes it would be great to have BOTH... but as someone who is about to spend way too much money to house my D90 I need options on ONE macro lens.
I am leaning towards the new Nikon 85mm as it seems to have the benefit of a little longer working distance than the 60 and maybe a bit of the easy of use that the 60 seems to have over the 105.
I do like the composition of the 105 more than the 60 which is the only reason I am not just going for the 60 to begin with.
Any opinions?
Oh the other lens I will be using for the time being is the Tokina 11-16, if that matters.
Cheers,
Chris
Consider also the 60mm + 1.4 teleconverter as an option .... I do agree that in some occasion I would like to have more working distance with my 60mm, but I don't think this justifies the extra cash to buy a 85mm or 105mm lens .... More working distance also means bigger water column between your port and the subject, i.e. less sharpness and definition in your pics.
Just my 0.02 $ ...... Francesco
One vote for the 105 when you are shooting in clear water. If you want less working distance use a subsee.
Tom
Consider also the 60mm + 1.4 teleconverter as an option .... I do agree that in some occasion I would like to have more working distance with my 60mm, but I don't think this justifies the extra cash to buy a 85mm or 105mm lens .... More working distance also means bigger water column between your port and the subject, i.e. less sharpness and definition in your pics.
Just my 0.02 $ ...... Francesco
I second that too 60mm + 1.4 teleconverter are fun. Depends on which housing, you might not need a separate port or extension ring.
That seems to be the problem, there is really not a right answer for any of the 3 lenses. I ordered all 3 and have been testing them to see which one i want to keep. It really seems to me that keeping the 85 would make the most sense if i were to only keep one. Just my opinion. kinda the all around? I wish i could offer more technical info but i am really new to underwater. As for above land, they all take great pictures.
I'm a 105 guy over the 60mm. The 60 is easier and the 105 sometimes hunts but 1:1 @ 8" working distance is too much to pass up.
In murky waters the 105 just has too many problems focusing. It can be a hard lens to shoot.
I love my "old" 60 AF-D. I like the idea of the 85 being in between, but I still think the 60 is more of an "all around" lens as you can use it with a diopter, for macro, and for fish portraits.
