is this a good lens AF-60mm

[CUunderH2O]

I have the older lens, and it's my most-used lens when I shoot underwater in the tropics. Fish portraits, macro, super macro (with a wet diopter added). A very versatile lens!

 

[RonFrank]

From a lens quality standpoint (distortion/aberrations/fringing) , the 60mm Nikon in any flavor is one of Nikon's top rated lenses. It is a 1:1 macro, and a very useful lens both topside,and UW.

I've shot one for years, and while the single focal length makes it one dimensional, for a macro lens that is what you want. The Non-AFS version can hunt a bit, and the focus is very wide. If I was in the market now, I'd be looking at the AFS version, but the older version is optically a great lens but a bit slow to focus.

For the difference of about $100 in price (new) the AFS would be my choice.

 

[alcina]

what do u mean several feet away with the 105 larry, is the 105 a macro lens yes, macro lens are only for close up yes??

yes, the 105 is a macro lens. It offers a larger working distance than the 60 does. Which means you have to be further away from your subject when you use the 105 vs the 60.

This can be a good thing when working with skittish creatures. It can be a pain in the bum when working in bad viz

Both lenses will most likely end up in your underwater kit as they are just that good. I personally prefer the 60 over my 100 (Canon is 100, Nikon is 105) because I like to get close and I like to know that even if the viz sucketh, I can still shoot effectively.

The 105/100 will also tend to "hunt" for focus more than the 60 will. A good aiming light is a worthwhile investment for the 100/105.

HTH

 

[Mariozi]

macro lens are only for close up yes??

A "macro" lens is just a normal lens (it does focus on the infinite also) that has the ability to focus closer than other lens. Normally so close that it is capable of doing 1:1 magnifications.

But it is a lens like any other, usually reasonable fast (f/2.8) in the "normal to tele" range (50-200), that other than macro can also be used for fish photos for example and also on topside for portraits, sports, weddings...

Each macro lens has different characteristics for underwater, in the Nikon range for example:
AF 60mm/2.8D: Good all around lens, especially for APS-C sized sensors.
AF-S 60mm/2.8VR: Great lens, compared to the old version a lot better for fish pics, but less suitable for macro and even less adaptable for Super Macro due to the smaller working distance.
AF 105mm/2.8D: Good macro lens, also nice for small fish and big fish portraits and more suitable to Full-Frame sensors. The 105mm's are better for Super Macro even on APS-C sized sensors.
AF-S 105mm/2.8VR: Great lens, better than the D version, the only disadvantage being some compatibility issues with some Teleconverters if you intend to go Super Macro.

 

[RonFrank]

The only difference between the use of a full framed sensor, and the APS-C sized sensor is the working distance. A 60mm lens becomes effectively a 90mm lens, and the 105mm a 157.5mm lens!

FF sensor cameras are expensive, and the OP does not own one, so kinda a mute point. I doubt that the quality of the D series lenses is any worst vs. the AFS lenses because the quality of both the 60mm, and 105mm D lenses was among the highest ever produced by Nikon (MTF 4.2). The handling/focus might be better. VR is also cool, and can be very useful. However on a 60mm lens hand holding at shutter speeds below 1/60 adds the probability of subject movement (blur) which destroys an image as fast as camera movement.

HERE is the MTF data on the 60mm f2.8. Unfortunately I don't think they are doing MTF ratings any more, but I could be wrong. 4.2 is DAMN good. The new lenses are not MTF rated.

 

[Mariozi]

The only difference between the use of a full framed sensor, and the APS-C sized sensor is the working distance. A 60mm lens becomes effectively a 90mm lens, and the 105mm a 157.5mm lens!

I guess you meant Focal Length instead of "working distance"...
more precisely, EFL - Effective Focal Length.

 

[buleetu]

thanks for the help guys

i went into a camera shop here in dublin yesterday and they want 600 euros for the afs 60mm but as i think i said in my earlyer post i can get the af for 260, im defo getting the 60mm but which one to get now is the question

is there really much differance with the af and the afs 60mms

 

[RonFrank]

I guess you meant Focal Length instead of "working distance"...
more precisely, EFL - Effective Focal Length.

The focal length remains unchanged regardless of the sensor used. So working distance and effective focal length can be considered interchangeable terms, however you are right, angle of view would be a better term. Changing the sensor size does not change the focal length. An 80mm lens is considered normal for a medium format camera. The 80mm focal length remains unchanged even if it is roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens when shooting a full frame 35mm sensor. You can attach some medium format zeiss lenses to a 35mm camera, and guess what, an 80mm MF lens remains an 80mm lens shooting 35mm.

The Canon G10 for example has a focal length of 6.1mm~30.5mm. Since folks can not seem to wrap their minds around REAL focal lengths based on the sensor size, it is advertised as having an effective focal length of 28mm~140mm. The reality is that is a conversion. If learning a new language one can think in English, and attempt to convert that to Japanese, but it would be best of one just thought in Japanese. Unfortunately many folks don't work that way, so the effective focal length is a crutch.

Ironically most Americans don't *think* in terms of mm, they think in inches. However in the world of camera's they think in terms of 35mm, but can not seem to think outside of 35mm terms. We live in a funny world!