60mm or 105mm macro?

[kdietz]

Ken, a Teleconverter is a 1 1/2" thick lens in itself....it goes between the camera body and the 60mm or 105mm lens....a 2X doubles the image magnification.

I think you are talking about a close up diopter that screws onto the front of the lens and can give upwards of 30% magnification or maybe more. The nikon 4T works with the 60mm and will fit without a new port.

An external slip on close up "Woody's Diopter" will give another 25% magnification and you can take it off during a dive if you want to shoot something bigger. This is a must IMHO try Ryan at ReefPhoto.com

Sorry to hear about the sync cord flood, but it sounds like Ike treated you right.

BTW, the D200 is great, but it's not 3 times better than the D70....the D70 is a great package

Karl

 

[Mo2vation]

Ken, a Teleconverter is a 1 1/2" thick lens in itself....it goes between the camera body and the 60mm or 105mm lens....a 2X doubles the image magnification.

I think you are talking about a close up diopter that screws onto the front of the lens and can give upwards of 30% magnification or maybe more. The nikon 4T works with the 60mm and will fit without a new port.

An external slip on close up "Woody's Diopter" will give another 25% magnification and you can take it off during a dive if you want to shoot something bigger. This is a must IMHO try Ryan at ReefPhoto.com

Sorry to hear about the sync cord flood, but it sounds like Ike treated you right.

BTW, the D200 is great, but it's not 3 times better than the D70....the D70 is a great package

Karl

Woody's Diopt I got. LOVE IT. I can't believe I still have it... I've left it on so many times, and swam away from a subject, only to notice it missing MINUTES later - every time I swim back, its still there on a rock or the sand. Just where it fell off! I clip it to one of the arms when I'm not using it. Sometimes I forget to peel it off and re-clip it!

I just started shooting RAW and using CS a few weeks ago. After 4 years of shooting UW I finally decided I should learn this Photoshop thing... :10:

Thanks agian!

---
Ken

 

[f3nikon]

guys i am really excited to test the new camera and am deciding on a macro lens to get. when i had my point and shoot, one of my favs was to shoot in macro especially in the clear warm waters of the philippines. was wondering which to get? which is the more versatile lens?

also is there a big difference between the sigma 105mm and the nikon 105mm?

Check these out before you decide:

http://www.digitaldiver.net/yabbse/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=17137

The second sea slugs on the first and second row are razor sharp you can almost feel the wrinkles.

http://www.ianskipworth.com/suig/nudis.html

 

[Rooster]

I'm with Karl. I have both the 60 and 105. I started with the 60 and it's a great lens. It wasn't until I actually wanted to get to 1:1 (and smaller) that I shelled out for the 105. Yes you can get 1:1 with the 60 but it’s a little harder to do. The 60 is more versatile, it does great macro, but can also do great fish portraiture. The 105 is the best if you are only going to do small stuff. Diving at home, (Guam), where I know where the small stuff is, I use the 105 (so I use it a lot). When I go on trips I use the 60 more, that way I can always get good fish photos and still be able to get the small stuff. A couple of other thing you may want to consider. The 60 is faster to focus, finds focus easier in low light (doesn’t hunt as bad as the 105), and it’s quieter. Plus you may want to wait around a little, until enough people have tried the new 105 VR lens.

 

[Wolverine]

which of the two do you actually use more?


thanks karl! the consensus is the 60mm is the more versatile of the two and in clear philippine waters, might edge out the more expensive 105 in terms of practical usage. now if only chooseing between the d200 and d70s was easier

Ahhh if only I can have both.. I am going to upgrade to the D200 from a D70 and my better half has told me to get rid of my trusty D70.. You interested??? I know its not the D70s but its going cheap... look to unload it at around HK$3000 with a resident (aged) 28-105mm lens..with box and software..

But if you are going for a new camera go for the D200... real solid camera with semi-pro feel... and I already have the 60mm. Using it topside for jewelry photography. Nice lens. Now if only I have the money to house the DSLR....

 

[Mariozi]

As far as macro goes I`d prefer Nikkor optics,
Sigma`s a great company, but I have seen some problems:
- lens flare(esp on zooms) are more controled on Nikkors.
- the Sigma 105mm seems to have a lower quality weather sealing, so some of my uwphotographers that use this lens have had some fungus problems.
- the Sigma 15mm fisheye on the other hand looks just as bit as good as the Nikkor 16mm fisheye (I use the Nikkor).
- One of my preferred Sigmas is the 8mm/4 circular fisheye!!!

 

[Mariozi]

As of the discussion between Nikkors 60mm or 105mm here is what I think,
Normally one should think the following:
"The worst the water, the better for the shorter focal distance in macro shooting."
And though I use the 105mm, I still hear the voice in my head: "Get yourself a 60mm..."
It is a GREAT lens but I would use it much more as a fish-lens than a macro-lens.
The 105mm with its greater working distance (doubly that of the 60mm) is much better for active/shy subjetcs.
One other difference that is rarely talked about is that the 105mm "thinks" differently than the 60mm.
At least for the borrowed one I did try here the 60mm goes to the infinte setting trying to search for focus as you press the shutter release, while the 105mm goes to the closest focus setting once you half-press the shutter.
When working in max amplification 1:1 (or more with accessories) it is better to work with the 105mm if you want to retain AF operation, in a sense that it is easy to set 1:1. That fact makes the 60mm much more of a "fish-lens" than the 105mm.
It is still a great lens! And I wish I had one...
But the working horse lenses of UWPhoto IMHO are:
AF-D Nikkor 16mm/2.8 fisheye (for SLRs)
OR
AF-D Nikkor 10.5mm/2.8 fisheye (for DSLRs) wich I believe it is better than the 16mm due to its close focus capabilities... also this lens is a BIG advantage over Canon systems.
AND
AF-D Nikkor 105mm/2.8 micro

 

[Spoon]

But the working horse lenses of UWPhoto IMHO are:
AF-D Nikkor 16mm/2.8 fisheye (for SLRs)
OR
AF-D Nikkor 10.5mm/2.8 fisheye (for DSLRs) wich I believe it is better than the 16mm due to its close focus capabilities... also this lens is a BIG advantage over Canon systems.
AND
AF-D Nikkor 105mm/2.8 micro

no mention of the 12-24mm?

 

[Mariozi]

Yeah, great lens...
She is the equivalent of the 18-35 on film era.
But I have seen numbers of UWPhotographers go through life without a 18-35.
Perhaps the next great buy, after one of those fisheye and the 105.
Underwater is not like shooting on land where you almost always have a straight line, or familiar face on the shot... and the fisheye make miracles in low vis.
I based the "working horse" theory on the following:
If I would have only one lens: I would like the fisheye.
If I would have just one more: I would go for the Nikkor 105mm.
The 12-24 stood just out of the WH range, and definitely not in due to the cost.
IMHO.

 

[Spoon]

Yeah, great lens...
She is the equivalent of the 18-35 on film era.
But I have seen numbers of UWPhotographers go through life without a 18-35.
Perhaps the next great buy, after one of those fisheye and the 105.
Underwater is not like shooting on land where you almost always have a straight line, or familiar face on the shot... and the fisheye make miracles in low vis.
I based the "working horse" theory on the following:
If I would have only one lens: I would like the fisheye.
If I would have just one more: I would go for the Nikkor 105mm.
The 12-24 stood just out of the WH range, and definitely not in due to the cost.
IMHO.

i have no prior experience with the fisheye but since i have a budget, it seemed a capricious addition to my lens wishlist