Help please (Nikon SLR Lens)

[likelite]

Another vote for the Nikkor 60mm - I use this one and a Nikkor 28-200 almost exclusively.

Keep in mind that if you use a lens with a lot of magnification, all your pictures will come out with a heavy blue cast - your strobe will only affect what's four feet or so in front of you, so anything further away than that will not be well-lit.

Happy snapping! - Like

 

[KevinB]

I have read several posts recommending the 60mm lens for macro. If I have the 18-70mm lens then do I really need the 60mm too? Can't the 18-70 do everything that the 60mm can do?
Thanks

 

[Warren_L]

I have read several posts recommending the 60mm lens for macro. If I have the 18-70mm lens then do I really need the 60mm too? Can't the 18-70 do everything that the 60mm can do?
Thanks

No, it cannot do 1:1 macro like the 60mm micro can. I have both and here is a comparison of the closest you can get with each lens. I also have the 105mm micro for futher comparison.

Here are the three lenses:

The 18-70mm lens at 60mm. Sorry for the slightly out of focus as I was a touch too close and too lazy to retake the shot....

The 60mm micro.

The 105mm micro.

 

[Rooster]

Warren,
Sorry but your photo comparison didn’t make sense to me. I also have the 105 and 60 Micro. Both will do 1:1 (film or full frame). The 60 just has to be closer to get the same magnification. So your comparison between the 60 and 105 is not accurate. Perhaps you had the limit switch set on the 60. I verified this by doing these. The first is the 60 the next is the 105. Sorry for the softness, low light hand held. The onboard flash cast a shadow with the 60. Both are at min focus distance.

 

[Warren_L]

I will check Rooster - thanks.

 

[Mike Veitch]

yes, both 60 and 105 will do 1:1

 

[f3nikon]

This should help:

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

 

[Mariozi]

IMHO There is no such a thing as good-all-round lens for UW.
What does it mean? Good for macro AND Wide Angle work? Forget about it.
Landside is another world, and maybe the 18-200 is a good all arounder.

In the macro world I have shot with both, and I will probably buy a 60mm in the near future.
But having owned more than 10 Nikkors, and used most of them UW, I have to recommend the 105 over it.
The majority of my work and the great pictures I see around are made by the fisheye/macro couple.
The best of both worlds IMHO would be something like 10,5mm, or 16mm if you are full frame (the DX one being better over the full-frame due to closer focus), AND 105mm (the 60 is a very acceptable substitute, specially for murky water, but not better) for UW photo.
Landside the 12-24mm is an G-R-E-A-T lens (just what the 10.5mm is UW), with a very good application UW for when the 10.5mm an too much of gun (when you get the hang of it, rarely), Sigma 10-20mm is a good option.
Mid-range the cheap Nikkor 50mm/1.8D (made a 75mm/1.8D) is a VERY NICE lens for under one-hundred, it is always on my body.
Tele-zoom, I would love the 70-200mm/2.8VR... the 70-300G is the cheap option, and the 80-200mm/2.8 NOT AF-S is an in between great lens.
Not mentioning the tele-zoom side.
My advice:
GO 10.5mm AND GET CLOSER!!!
GO 105mm AND DONT GET THAT CLOSE!!!