Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nikon 60mm vs Nikon 105mmvr


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 JJ4DIVER

JJ4DIVER

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 March 2013 - 01:21 PM

If you could only choose one of these lenses for a dive trip...which one would you take and why?

 

Thanks!



#2 JimSwims

JimSwims

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mornington Peninsula, Australia.

Posted 09 March 2013 - 04:50 PM

This is a perennial subject, do a quick forum search and you will find a cart load of threads comparing the two lens.

 

Briefly I'd take the 60mm as it is more versatile.

 

It will also depend on where you're trip is too and what you have on your wish list to shoot. EG if you where going to a tropical

location with relatively clean water and say where hoping to get some shots of Mandarinfish then I'd go for the 105mm and dive

according to that lens. Which ever choice you make there will be a compromise, but the 60mm will offer wider options (pardon pun).

 

Cheers,

Jim.


My photostream on Flickr My gallery on Redbubble

D90 in Nexus; 60mm, Woody's Diopter, 105mm, SubSee +5 & +10 magnifiers, 10-17mm, Kenko 1.4 TC, 10-24mm, 18-55mm & Inon Z240 strobes.


#3 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:07 PM

I agree with Jim.

 

But I mainly use the Kenko 1.4X Teleconverter with my 60mm which give me even more versatility.

 

Regards Mark


Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing called "Deedee", Tokina 10-17,Nikkor 60mm, Nikkor 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Ikelite DS161

http://www.flickr.co...s/22898788@N04/

#4 E_viking

E_viking

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich, Germany
  • Interests:UW Photography, Diving,
    Skiing & Mountaineering

Posted 10 March 2013 - 08:00 AM

It depends on format as well.

 

My vote would be

DX => 60mm

FX=> 105mm

 

/Erik


Nikon D800, Nikon 60, 105, 16-35, Sigma 15, Nauticam D800, Zen 230mm, Subsee +5 & +10, 2*INON Z240


#5 tdpriest

tdpriest

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

Posted 10 March 2013 - 08:15 AM

Erik's absolutely right. The 60mm isn't tight enough for an FX sensor, but it's just right for a DX: even if you would have to get that bit closer for 1:1 reproduction, the smaller sensor makes it less necessary. On an FX sensor the 105mm is almost ideal: under some circumstances, you can even take the image of schooling fish!

 

Bali 2012 55 0301 Tulamben Jacks.jpg



#6 JJ4DIVER

JJ4DIVER

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 March 2013 - 02:41 PM

Thanks for the info Guys...appreciate it!



#7 Alastair

Alastair

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia

Posted 17 March 2013 - 05:30 PM

take both... tell the wife she doesn't need all that shampoo... they have it in the hotel room, hide them in the kids rucksacks they don't need toys they are going on holiday!!.. anything... but take both.  i did a trip to Egypt and i only took my 60mm as i agree with jim it is a very versatile lens but the super macro photogrpaher in me kept wanting to get more magnification and i find it hard with the 60mm as it is too close.  and i find that with the teleconvertor my AF does not work smoothly.. :)


Alastair

Nikon D90 Aquatica housing, nikkor 60mm, ,105VR mm, 18-70mm, 17-55mm, 10.5mm FE, 15mm FE, 10-20mm.
Inon strobes, TLC arms.

www.mcgregorUW.smugmug.com

#8 E_viking

E_viking

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich, Germany
  • Interests:UW Photography, Diving,
    Skiing & Mountaineering

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:19 PM

Ok, I agree that for Super macro work a 105mm would be better.


Nikon D800, Nikon 60, 105, 16-35, Sigma 15, Nauticam D800, Zen 230mm, Subsee +5 & +10, 2*INON Z240


#9 Julian D

Julian D

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 47 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:59 AM

Hi.  I'm a total novice and have never used a 60, so could be way off the mark here, but when I was researching which macro lens to get I saw a suggestion to look at photos taken with the different lenses. I had quite a strong preference for the photos taken with the 105 (DX).  I also read that it was harder to use than a 60 but decided to get one anyway. 

 

It definately is tricky to use but now that I am getting the hang of it, the photos I am taking are (in a novice kind of way) like I imagined (close up shots of small fish with really blurred backgrounds).

 

I've definately seen a few potential subjects and thought it would be good to have less magnification but I'm sure that works both ways.



#10 TomR1

TomR1

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:31 AM

I focused on the 105. It took some getting proficient but now I never use the 60mm unless the vis is bad. (I usually dive in relatively clear water.) I then purchased a +10 Sub See (old style) and that took a long while to even get competent (not proficient). I traded up to a +5, +10 Sub See combination and found the +5 pretty easy to use but the +10 is stil a work-in-progress. I tried a Sigma150mm. It focused way too slow. (Anyone want one cheap?) I tried a Kento 2:1 T/C but the autofocus was poor. (Anyone want one cheap?)

 

So the 105 is still my workhouse. Going to little cayman the puddle jumper costs a buck a pound so I am taking one lens -- the 105mm.

 

Still trying to get more than 1:1. Maybe an extension tube or a Nikon T/c next

 

Tom

 

Fyi: I shoot a D-300



#11 vbpress

vbpress

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Novara

Posted 19 March 2013 - 12:56 AM

I want to say only one thing

Nikon 60 Micro have a amazing AF speed, which 105 don't have.

This skill means that is possible to catch fast moving subject and maintaining it in focus.

I realized that trying to shot a close image of a little fresh water jellyfish (7-10mm length) in open water. Super fast 60 micro AF make it possible.

23_PTC_0131.jpg

 

Yes of course 60 on DX is the best, on FX is not enough long. I'm waiting for a 105 micro with the same 60 AF speed !

by


Valerio

------------------------------------

http://fotobestiali.blogspot.it/


#12 JJ4DIVER

JJ4DIVER

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:34 PM

So then is the 60mm AF- D lens or the newer  60mm AF-S lens the better choice??



#13 manatee19

manatee19

    Wolf Eel

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Interests:U/W photo columnist and contributor to Diver Magazine (Vancouver) and En Profondeur magazine (Montreal), multimedia production.

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:38 PM

AF-S is a no brainer unless you have a budget issue. MUCH faster AF.
Michel Gilbert
www.sub-images.com

#14 TomR1

TomR1

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:07 PM

Not my experience that the 105 is slow AF.



#15 vbpress

vbpress

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Novara

Posted 21 March 2013 - 01:14 AM

Yes, 

I'm referring to Nikon 60/2.8 AF-S. Sorry!

The 60 AF-S is an internal focusing lens and it has a very fast auto focusing skill, more faster than  the 105 AF-s VR.

 

Obviously 60 is too short focal on FX format  :aggressive:

 

by


Valerio

------------------------------------

http://fotobestiali.blogspot.it/


#16 ians.moyes@gmail.com

ians.moyes@gmail.com

    Sea Nettle

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plymouth, Devon, UK
  • Interests:SCUBA, photography, computers. Pretty much anything geeky. lol

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:44 AM

Yes, 

I'm referring to Nikon 60/2.8 AF-S. Sorry!

The 60 AF-S is an internal focusing lens and it has a very fast auto focusing skill, more faster than  the 105 AF-s VR.

 

Obviously 60 is too short focal on FX format  :aggressive:

 

by

Is the 105 AF-s VR an internal focusing lens?


Wreck divers are always bringing up the past

#17 Alex_Tattersall

Alex_Tattersall

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:10 AM

Yes, it is.


www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersall

www.nauticamuk.com
www.uwvisions.com
Exclusive official importer of Nauticam products into the UK and Ireland

#18 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:08 AM

Another thing to think about with the 60mm Nikkor Macro is that the AFD version can be used with a TC like the Kenko pro 300 1.4x, its cheaper, and its only a fraction slower in AF than the AFS 60mm. 

 

Regards Mark


Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing called "Deedee", Tokina 10-17,Nikkor 60mm, Nikkor 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Ikelite DS161

http://www.flickr.co...s/22898788@N04/

#19 DamonA

DamonA

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane
  • Interests:Photography, Scuba, Skin Diving, "Animal Lover" and Woodworking, Licensed Professional Joiner & Carpenter.
    Don't like contact sport at all or elite level professional sport.

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:04 AM

Depends where the dive trip is, what the viz will be and the types of marine life at that time of year, whether or not you'll get a focus gear with it.

 

The 60mm is easier to use- but the 105 will get you shots of better scale with flighty pelagic fish or gobbies and blennies. Ambient light shots the 60mm is great http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream

 

 

 

If your shooting tiny stuff(105mm, possibly a 5 or 10+diopter) or fish portraits(60mm and the TC)- both have a time and a place, really you need both, if you did 1 dive and noticed lots of nudi's, you'd change lenses to the 105mm for the next dive......... but as a first lens and only lens, I'd go with the 60mm- it's cheaper if you wet it :(

 

I bought one Vg condition 2nd hand on ebay for $222.50, a 105mm EXC for $390 both the D type and got the xit404 zoom knob focus gear, as I found selecting a focus point blows the shot timing and makes lots of rubbish bin shots.

 

- so many factors to think about.

 

here look at these- it has a few 35mm shots that aren't as sharp as the 60mm or 105mm

http://www.flickr.co...s/71049198@N08/



#20 tdpriest

tdpriest

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

Posted 07 May 2013 - 11:42 AM



The 60mm is easier to use- but the 105 will get you shots of better scale with flighty pelagic fish or gobbies and blennies. Ambient light shots the 60mm is great http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream

 

 

Do gobbies make a lot of angry noises underwater? Or is that a joke that only a Brit would follow?

 

_WET3101b.jpg

 

A gobby (mouthy) shark...