nikon 60mm micro vs 105mm micro

Hi all
Just wondering if I could get some opinions about something:
If you already had a 105mm micro lens, would it be necessary (or worthwhile) to get a 60mm micro?
Thanks

Hi,

Its liang again.

I use both 60mm and 105mm. It would be good if you have both.

A rule of thumb.

For fish portrait, portrait of moral, large sea slug/nudibranch, use the 60mm.

For anything smaller, ie less than 1.5 inches, use the 105mm.

And of course, I would like to have a teleconverter for subject that is smaller than 10mm.

Basically, if the subject that can be taken with the 60mm and have the same visual effect (ie you can have the same composition) as the 105mm, I recommend you use the 60mm. This is because with the 60mm, you actually reduce the water column. You will get sharper picture. 60mm is also easier to focus.

My 2 cents worth, hope it helps

liang

Originally posted by sillago
Hi all
Just wondering if I could get some opinions about something:
If you already had a 105mm micro lens, would it be necessary (or worthwhile) to get a 60mm micro?
Thanks

Click to expand...

I agree with liang, and add;
If you already have the 105, is the 60 necessary? No. Is it worthwhile? This all depends on what you want to shoot. I have, and use, both. I actually feel that the 60 is a more versatile lens, but like all things there is a trade off. There is no such thing as the "ONE" perfect lens for all situations. Both the 105 and the 60 will allow you to shoot 1:1, but the 105 is easier to use at this ratio. This is due to the minimum focus distance. The 60 will do 1:1, but you have to focus at 8" to do this. This is 8" from the film plane, which put the subject about 2" from the end of my port glass. This can make it hard to get the strobes positioned, not to mention that most critters don?t like to have a big camera stuck that close to their face. The 105 will do 1:1 out at 12". This extra 4" makes it easier to position strobes and will somewhat minimize the camera in the face factor. The down side is, more distance, more water, less light, more possibility of scatter. The 60 does focus faster, is sharper, and dose not search as much as the 105. There have been time I have had one lens on, and wish I had the other. Hope this doesn't add to much confusion ;-}

Dive Safe,
Rooster

I started out with a 60mm. It is a great lens, but I wanted to imporve my macro work, so I purchased the 105mm lens. After that, I've never used the 60mm lens underwater again.

The 60mm lens is better for fish portraits, slightly sharper than the 105mm and doesn't hunt like the 105mm (i.e. less underwater cuss words), but it's really hard to approach the 1:1 potential since you have to get so close.

I just found it easier to stick with one lens, the 105mm. If you take a more refined approach to matching subject with lens, then the 60mm can come in handy.

Thanks for the info guys

So is it possible for someone to use the 105mm to take full portrait photos of fish (but with focusing time being longer, further distance from subject, more powerful strobes, risk of backscatter etc)?

Look at my photos. All but the one with the diver in it were taken with the 105mm. They were all cropped to an 8"x10" format, too, so some were actually wider shots.

Curacao photos