 Desiree C. Preckwinkle |
Macro/Portrait Lens Question I am looking for a macro and portrait lens. It is between the 60mm or 105mm Micro-Nikkor lenses. Which is better for portraits, and what is better for macro? Also, if I used the 60mm to photograph a ladybug, how would it compare to a photograph taken with a 105mm? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Krystle Hill |
I just wanted to pop in and tell you I have a 70-3000mm with macro and I LOVE it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stan Lubach |
Both Nikkor macro lenses will get you 1:1. I have the 60mm and think it's great - real sharp with nice contrast. It also has a flat focus field so it's perfect if you want to shoot a document/painting or the like. It's also good for waist-up portraits. The 105mm would probably be better for head shots, as well as taking macro shots of things that get scared when a lens is shoved in their face, since it gives you a little more working distance.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robert L. Ashley |
I use a Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro. I like it so much, I use it as my walk around lens. Shooting with a single focal length, I have to be more mindful. I think this helps in the creative process.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Canfield |
Desiree - i think you'd find the 105 a better all around choice for portrait and macro work. The 105 is closer to the "normal" for portraits, and gives you more working space between you and your ladybug. At 1:1, you wouldn't see a difference in the size of the subject, but the 105 would do a better job of blurring the background for you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Devon McCarroll |
Hi Dseiree! Don't discount the Sigma 105mm macro (Nikon mount). I bought it because it got great reviews and is WAY less expensive than the Nikkor, and I get gorgeous images with it. Take a look at the flowers in my gallery--most were shot with that lens. Devon
|
|
|
|
||
|
Devon McCarroll |
Oops! Sorry I misspelled your name on my previous post! Devon
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Canfield |
Devon has a good point - many of the other macro lenses are excellent. I use the Sigma 180 EX on my Canon with excellent results.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nick M. Adamson |
One thing to remember when considering which lens is minimum focus distance...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charles J. Kelly |
I have the Nikkor 105. My decision to buy it instead of a 50 or 60 mm was based on not being able to gey close to the ground due to knee problems. The extra length is a plus. It's a great lens ! Chuck
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
With the digital conversion you have almost a 100mm lens for portraiture with the Nikkor 60mm. I have it and LOVE it, and take tons of macro, head shots, and full body shots. Take a look at my gallery... the majority of them were taken with the 60mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor. You can't go wrong with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Desiree C. Preckwinkle |
Thanks all for the responses. Now for a few other questions. Jon- you say the 105mm is closer to the normal for portraits, but would an 85mm lens for portraits be even closer? Devon- do you know the quality difference of the sigma vs. nikon lenses? Very minimal difference? Also do you know on the nikon lenses, what is the difference in quality between a G and a D mount lens. The D mounts are much more pricy. Nick- In regards to having the better focus distance, what would be better for portraits? 105mm with macro or 85mm lens. Sipho, good bringing up digital conversion. I used my film and digital camera this weekend with the same lenses and same focal lenght, and why do the pictures look different? To ALL..... I need a telephoto, portrait, and macro lens. Between these choices, what it the best choice to buy the least amount of lenses, but get everything I need as well. Between the: I am thinking I can get away with the portrait lens and just 1 of the macro lense. But am very stumpt at which to buy. Help. Thanks and I know I may have rambled on a bit. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
Depending on what digital camera you have and its sensor size the conversion can vary slightly. The rule of thumb though is to multiply the focal length on the lens by 1.5 to get the focal length on a digital. So, my 60mm f/2.8 Nikkor Micro lens is actually a 90mm on my D70s.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Canfield |
Desiree - Yes, an 85 would be even closer. You might want to check out the 90mm Tamron which has gotten very good reviews as well. One other thing you might consider is using a close-up filter and extension tubes with a standard portrait lens. If macro use is secondary, this would be a good alternative for you. The one drawback that I find to using a macro lens for portrait work is that they're so sharp! That sharpness isn't always ideal for a portrait where you want smoother skin texture. If I was going to buy 2 lenses, I would get the 65mm macro if non-live subjects were the goal, or the 105 if bugs and such were my interest, and the portrait lens. For a single lens, I'd get the 90mm or 105mm macro. Jon
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nick M. Adamson |
For your minimum focus distance, consider your subject. For portraits just make sure the minimum focus distance isn't something outrageously far (I've seen some lenses rated at over 15 feet). As for your macro lens, usually macro have a very short minimum focus distance, in which case it would allow you to get very close to a small subject like a lady bug, you don't want it to be too far because then you won't be able to get close enough to the subject to fill the frame some. If it is more then 5 feet I wouldn't buy it. Again, consider your subjects, if you are going to be shooting things as small as a lady bug I would recommend the 105mm. With the 105mm, you can always step back to take pictures of larger subjects, and for macro shots of things like bugs, I would prefer the detail the 105mm would offer. If you are going to buy the lenses from a shop see if you can take your body in, mount them up and see how things like a penny fills your frame.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||