60mm Micro Nikkor v 105mm Sigma

hi all,

I am in the process of upgrading a 5050 to a D70 and need to get a macro lens to go with the nikon 12-24 that I have for wide-angle. I will be buying an Ikelite housing in time for a late April trip to Bonaire.

I can't really afford the Nikkor 105mm at this time so the choice seems to be down to the Nikkor 60mm vs the Sigma 105mm.

Which is better for an only macro lens or am a fooling myself and should I bite the bullet and go for the Nikkor 105mm.

Previous discussions comparing the 60mm and the 105mm have been fairly ambiguous I feel and not come down on one side or the other, rather than to say the 60mm is better at autofocusing.

What is the real difference in operating distance between them ?

Any help with this decision is greatly appreciated. Why is housing an SLR so damn complicated ? So many decisions to make and cash to spend !

Mark

Hi Mark,

There is also the Tamron 90mm to consider. It's somewhere in between the two.

The 60mm on a D70 gives pretty good magnification but you have to get really close. For example, you can get 1:1 christmas tree worms, but you can't get close enough to get 1:1 with most fish, unless they are dead...:-)

With the 105 and a D70 you can stay back a foot and still get a good fish face shot.

HTH

James Wiseman

Hi Mark, I don't know anything about Nikon micros, but I do have the Tamron 90mm macro in canon mount. I've used it underwater, and it's OK. It's pin sharp, but focuses too slowly for my liking. There's at least one other user of the canon-mount Tamron 90mm around wetpixel who's really happy with its performance, but that's my experience.

You can't really compare these two lenses. They really aren't the same tool at all. They are two very different focal lengths. I have both the 60mm Nikkor and the 105mm Nikor. I've only shot the 60mm underwater. I just got the 105mm this month.

1) The 60mm is a great fish portriat lens. I like this kind of photography so I really like this lens. I get excellent sharp full-body triggerfish/filefish/parrotfish shots at reasonable distances. It focuses fast in auto which is great for fish. I don't really consider it a macro lens though. If you want small skittish stuff you need to go longer. You get 1:1 at 8".

2) The 105mm gives you more working distance. This is more of a real macro lens. You get 1:1 at 12". You can also use this with a diopter (as I plan to) and get very close and very big. I have heard that it is hard to autofocus this lens in low light.

You should first decide which tool you want, then decide Nikon or Sigma. I think Sigma makes quality optics and you shouldn't be dissuaded by brand loyalty or marketing. I considered getting the Sigma 105mm. You should be able to switch between manual and autofocus by using the AF-M mode on the new DX version in an Ikelite housing with the zoom clamp on the focus mechanism. It may be a bit wide. Please be the ginea pig and settle this one.

No one on this board seemed to have much experience with the sigma however. Lots of people love the Nikon 105mm. In the end, the special Ikelite AF/M port for the 105mm and the $140 rebate swung me back toward Nikon.

You will probably want both eventually, so I'd stick with Nikon hardware esp. if you have Ikelite. Then get the 105mm when you can afford it.

I have been shooting the 60mm and in the process of acquiring the nikon 105mm. I love te 60mm immersely and if not for the fact that I want to shoot pygmy seahorses, I would be extremely happy shooting the 60mm with a woody's diopter.

For me, if there were only one lens i could own, it would be the 60mm without a doubt.

Eric

I have the 60mm and playing w/my new 105mm, both Nikon. The main issue is if you use AF. The 105 can take a long time to focus in anything but "tropical conditions" and needs an above average focus light in medium to low light conditions.

The 60mm is a better all around lens especially when you first start out. The big advantage of the 105mm is shooting shy macro life.

Would a woody's diopter allow you to shoot with a 60mm from further away, and is this a good compromise vs. shelling out for a 105mm?

Would a woody's diopter allow you to shoot with a 60mm from further away, and is this a good compromise vs. shelling out for a 105mm?

Sort of. I've used both Nikon versions of the lenses. The 60 with a Woody is my favorite setup as I can get quite a bit more magnification and still have more flexibility as necessary. The 105 with a woody allows you to get a little closer to the subject, which helps here in our temperate waters... ;-).

To the OP, get the 60 first, the older version might save you a few $$ and a woody. Get to know and love them, then think about the 105, it's takes quite a learning curve.

Jack

Thanks- I'm struggling with the "want it all but can't afford it" syndrome. I'm probably compromising on the housing by going polycarbonite vs aluminum, but this should allow me to put a bit more into lenses. I'm coming from an Oly C4000, so I'm used to being able to zoom and not have to get too close. But I think I'll take your advice, as it's not the first time I've heard it- 60mm first, then 105mm later.

definitely get teh 60mm first, its much more versatile. the 105mm is more limited in scope, though as said is better for shots of small, shy critters. the 60mm can do everything from larger fish portraits to macro, and is easier to use. if $$ is a concern, the old 60mm, which i have, is a gorgeous lens and you won't be disappointed with it. cheers,

chris

There is another option worth considering. Tamron has a new 60mm f2.0 macro that seems to combine some of the best of both worlds, especially for APS-C cameras. (Available in July). The 90mm equivalent allows more utility when not in macro mode, and in macro mode the working distance is 100mm, close to that of the 105mm, allowing more space between camera and subject than othe 60mm macros. For those with macro experiance, is there a problem with the aperture range going only to f22? I wonder about its usability in most housings, especially Aquatica D90, which I am considering. Any comments on the lens or its housing-worthiness?

As mentioned you will eventually end up with both lenses. The 60 is easier to shoot & more versitile. The 105 is basically for small stuff or critters like shrimp gobies that are hard to get close to without spooking. When you do get the 105 go with the VR - AF is much faster & it has AF with manual over-ride, so no special port required for manual focus.