Nikon 60/2.8 AF macro lens

The 60mm f2.8 mico, works great underwater ( inside a housing !) If a photographer is using manual exposuer calculations for flash , they will find that you do indeed lose f stops as you focus down near 1:1 However , the new Nikon data backs will tell you the actual f stop. Example, you are set at f 22 and near 1:1, the data back (MF-23) will read f 32 or f 45 etc. and if programed to do so, it will imprint exposure data between frames. Just tear open the slide mounts on poorly exposed images and find out your mistake.

For about 5 years, I have the 60 mm. lens with which I have obtained magnify photos of insects, with only and an annular flash. I have seen that in all catalogues of Nikon, very frequently, although they do not deal with macrophotography, usually they show the cameras with this objective, soon must be proud of itl. But at the moment I have problems since the insects that I want to portray, like butterflies and beetles, do not allow to come near to them. Therefore I am thinking about selling 60mm. and trying to buy 105 high frequency (1:1) or 200mm. with TK301. What advise to me?

I had a 60 Macro Nikkor, but I found that the amount thajt it needed to be turned to focus it was very, very small. I focus macro lenses manually, even on my N70, and I found this lens very hard to focus precisely. So I went back to my 55/2.8 macro and have been very happy.

The Nikkor 200mm/4D micro does feature close-range correction.

I have used 60/2.8 micro for several months, and I have found several problems with it, which ultimately prompted me to sell it and the the 200/4 A-D micro. They are:

1) Close to 1:1, the distance from the front of the lens to the subject is too small for most practical purposes -- minor adjustments in tripod position pose the risk of touching the front of the lens/hood to the subject.

2) The "focus creep", i.e, the lens focus creeps a little bit when shooting straight down or up. Also, the focusing ring is very sensitive, i.e., small turns result in big focus changes.

3) The lens includes far too much background in most shots I took -- it is simply not a good lens for isolating a subject. I have heard however that it is great for copy work (which I never do).

All in all, I think one is much better served by a close-up diopter on a telephoto lens (the cheap solution), or by a longer macro lens (I opted for 200mm) than by 60/2.8.

After using several manual and auto-focus Nikkors, the Nikon 60/2.8 has yielded the sharpest photos yet. My macro subjects tend to be stationary and careful focusing is needed to produce sharp pictures (and to protect the front element!). As with all macro photography you MUST use a camera stand or competent tripod or expect less than ideal results. The 60 also serves as my "normal" prime and produces sharp and contrasty images. The 60 produces the most natural looking perspectives when shooting hobby models such as auto and train models. It also exhibits a fairly flat field so art and document copy can be done without elaborate lighting (to compensate for stopping down the aperture).

David Burckhard

How about the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8? This lens is both an excellent macro as well as short telephoto, perfect for candids or portraits. Furthermore, the extra focal length gives a more comfortable working distance for photomacrography, especially if your thing is scientific imaging or photoreproduction. Finally, the maximum f-stop is average for pretty much any 100-105, so you don't necessarily sacrifice speed for macro capability.

While I have heard comments regardig close-up diopters, no one has succeeded in mentioning the cheapest way to get a good close-up image; extension tubes and/or reversal rings. I use both of these with my 50 and 180mm Nikkors and find that they produce excellent results. Granted, I wouldn't try to photograph any flat planes (photoreproduction) with this setup, as the corners would certainly be unacceptably soft, but for nature shots, this setup is great and cheap.

did you know that martin parr (magnum) has used this lens a lot in his work...

Just like Timothy Breihan said, reversing the 50mm prime can get a sharp close-up, no exposure compensation is needed since I also once toyed around reversing AIS 50mm f1.8. By the way reversing 24mm f2.8 gives bigger magnification but flares easily and tends to underexpose if shooting according to what I read from the aperture ring and light meter. :)

The Nikkor 60/2.8 macro lens is great to:

(a) photoreproduction either prints or -perhaps- slides; (b) macrophotography when the subject´s size isn´t too small (flowers, butterflies and locusts, for exampl (c) face´s portrait with "black" background and soft light near a "classical" window, as long as the person hasn´t pimples... or the last print not will be too great...

Certainly, focusing is some hard between distances 1 m to infinity because the focus ring is too sensible (too sensible!) and a tripod is always nedeed. On the other hand, the diffaction isn´t notorious at f/32...(or I didn´t see it still). When I bought it in 1996 in NY, it costed $ 600; and today costs $350. Was it a robbery then?

A note about mechanical properties (freshly bought, no photos yet): People often complain about manual focusing in far-away range. It is true, beacuse the distance from infinity to 2 meters is about 1/2 cm on the ring. But look - this has beneficial effect on auto focusing! Used as normal lens, Micro 60 focuses much faster then other non-ultrasonic Nikkors. The other nice surprise was M/A switch operation. Unlike in Nikkor 180/2.8, M/A disengages AF on the lens side completely. AF lever on the camera may be left in auto position all the time.

How is work micro 60mm f 2,8 with D2x?any one have great exprience about it?

I have owned 2 of these lenses and ended up selling them both, just because I like the focal length, but don't like the limitation of closeness to the subject and wider field than the 105mm macro. Granted these were on 35mm cameras, not my D-SLRs. I suspect the 60mm would be a pretty good choice for a D70 or D50, but the 105mm just smokes compared to the sharpness of the 60mm (not that the 60mm is a dog--by ANY means. The 105mm is just sharper).

Jewelry Photography

I am trying to decide between this 60mm and the 105mm and hear conflcting responses as to the Depth of field. I want to take jewelry shots in studio and need to know if there will be enough depth of field in the 105. Reading this forum suggests that there won't even be enough in the 60mm. Suggestions and comments appreciated.

Concerning the Depth of field of that lens or any other one it's the same. Depth of field is define by two things magnification and aperture, focal length and distance are two parameters for magnification.

M = F / (D - F)

M = magnification D = Distance F = Focal length

that's true for ANY lens.