scottfiji
Contributor
great advice Jean
Macro lense question for D5000
- Thread starter zoomjay
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
That generation of 60mm is NOT an AF-S lens. It does not have
a motor and will not autofocus with the OP's camera.
And I'm pretty sure the current 60 mm AF-S DOES have the D feature,
which sends focus distance from the lens to the camera. It may
not have a "D" written on it, but I'm 99% sure it sends the data.
Thanks for picking this up Chuck, my pharasing could have been much clearer.
Indeed, and as mentioned, the newer 60mm DOES make use of the 'D' feature (like all newer Nikkors), Nikon just doesn't bother putting it up there with the rest of the feature designators. What I was trying to point out is that to my knowledge there is no official Nikon designation '60 AF-S macro f2.8 D' so the lens in question is probably an older 60mm AF-D (given that the letter 'D' is mentioned).
As both you and Viz'art mentioned (and I for some reason missed in the list of differences) the older AF-D does not have a built-in motor and the D5000 will not autofocus with it. You'd think I would mention that...being probably one of the most important differences.
Indeed, and as mentioned, the newer 60mm DOES make use of the 'D' feature (like all newer Nikkors), Nikon just doesn't bother putting it up there with the rest of the feature designators. What I was trying to point out is that to my knowledge there is no official Nikon designation '60 AF-S macro f2.8 D' so the lens in question is probably an older 60mm AF-D (given that the letter 'D' is mentioned).
As both you and Viz'art mentioned (and I for some reason missed in the list of differences) the older AF-D does not have a built-in motor and the D5000 will not autofocus with it. You'd think I would mention that...being probably one of the most important differences.
Viz'art
Contributor
Well, on top of that Nikon is not necessarily bragging about this little detail. It’s unlikely that newcomer to the Nikon system would think to ask about this, I think it’s pretty darn important as it does put a damper on a few others very popular lenses, the Tokina 10-17mm and the Nikon 10.5mm & 16mm, thanks to Sigma at least the fisheye lens is not excluded altogether, they have a 10mm fisheye that is HSM.
thought I had this although have one small point to ask about:
Understand that the AF-D does not have the integral motor and will not focus with the D 5000.
With that said... there is still an "older" model 60 AF-S macro 2.8 (93-2008) and a newer (2008+) 60 AF-S Micro lens, correct???
Some of this makes me wonder about selling my Olympus... although progress is often not cheap or easy...
Understand that the AF-D does not have the integral motor and will not focus with the D 5000.
With that said... there is still an "older" model 60 AF-S macro 2.8 (93-2008) and a newer (2008+) 60 AF-S Micro lens, correct???
Some of this makes me wonder about selling my Olympus... although progress is often not cheap or easy...
To my knowledge, and unforunately for you, there are no pre-2008 AF-S 60mm Nikkors; the only 60mm macro lenses Nikon made prior to 2008 were AF and AF-D models.
Going backwards, the 60mm AF-S was introduced in 2008, replacing the 60mm AF-D. The AF-D was introduced in 1993, replacing the regular (non-'D') AF which was in production since 1989. Prior to 1989 Nikon did not make any 60mm macro lenses, but instead featured a 55mm in its line.
Going backwards, the 60mm AF-S was introduced in 2008, replacing the 60mm AF-D. The AF-D was introduced in 1993, replacing the regular (non-'D') AF which was in production since 1989. Prior to 1989 Nikon did not make any 60mm macro lenses, but instead featured a 55mm in its line.
got it (I think)... thus, if I find a 60 mm AF-S it will (by default) be a 2008+ model and will work with my D5000. I did see on one site where one of these lenses indicated that it would not auto focus with the D5000 (although would with others such as the D300) although that makes no sense to me... Complexity in the name of flexibility - seems to be the issue here...
You are correct about the lens. Just make double sure that it is an AF-S lens and that the letter 'D' is not printed as a technichal feature anywhere on it. ('ED' is fine, plain 'D' is the problem. Refer to my original post regarding what they stand for).
As for the hows and whys of Nikon cameras and their ability to autofocus...it may be easier to think in zeros.
Higher and mid-range Nikons are in the double zeros like the D300s, the D700 and the older, no longer in production D200. Entry-level to mid-range Nikons used to be in the single 0s (D40, D60, D80) although the D90 is such a great camera I hate to use this name for it. The number that is not a zero (e.g. a '9' as in D90), indicates where it falls within Nikon's line with a D90 for example, being a highr-en model than a D40. Generally, the higher the overall number, the 'more' camera you get (e.g. the D700 is at the top of the line with the D300s and the D90 and foloowing as second and third of the D class). 'More' meaning 'more buttons, wheels, functions and features' like built-in motor (and therefore AF capabilty with older design lenses), live view, ability to shoot video, dedicated wheels/buttons, etc.
So what about the triple zeros (D3000, D5000)? I guess Nikon was running out of numbers after the D90 with the D100 and D200 having already been used (no longer produced models). In addition the D5000 is 'less' of a camera than the D90 (strictly feature-wise speaking; I wouldn't mind having the D5000 as my only DSLR)... So they just added a zero and started over with a 'new' line.
Apologies for the oversimplification, just trying to give the overall gist without getting too technical. We didn't even get to the 'no-zeros' like the D2H...
As for the hows and whys of Nikon cameras and their ability to autofocus...it may be easier to think in zeros.
Higher and mid-range Nikons are in the double zeros like the D300s, the D700 and the older, no longer in production D200. Entry-level to mid-range Nikons used to be in the single 0s (D40, D60, D80) although the D90 is such a great camera I hate to use this name for it. The number that is not a zero (e.g. a '9' as in D90), indicates where it falls within Nikon's line with a D90 for example, being a highr-en model than a D40. Generally, the higher the overall number, the 'more' camera you get (e.g. the D700 is at the top of the line with the D300s and the D90 and foloowing as second and third of the D class). 'More' meaning 'more buttons, wheels, functions and features' like built-in motor (and therefore AF capabilty with older design lenses), live view, ability to shoot video, dedicated wheels/buttons, etc.
So what about the triple zeros (D3000, D5000)? I guess Nikon was running out of numbers after the D90 with the D100 and D200 having already been used (no longer produced models). In addition the D5000 is 'less' of a camera than the D90 (strictly feature-wise speaking; I wouldn't mind having the D5000 as my only DSLR)... So they just added a zero and started over with a 'new' line.
Apologies for the oversimplification, just trying to give the overall gist without getting too technical. We didn't even get to the 'no-zeros' like the D2H...
- Messages
- 779
- Reaction score
- 34
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
This is really getting lost. The D5000 requires AF-S lenses (or the equivalent HSM from Sigma). Simple.
The natural choices are the Nikon 60mm AF-S for macro, and probably the Nikon 10-24mm AF-S for wide. These are safe choices. If you want a longer macro for longer working distance from timid or dangerous subjects, the 105mm AF-S is another safe choice. The Sigma 10-20 HSM lens has good reviews, but not as good as the Nikon. I had the predecessor non -HSM and did not like it, so I recommend the Nikon 10-24 if you can afford it. If only Tokina made the 10-17 in an AF-S type, but not yet.
If you use a dome, it typically shifts the infinity focus to something like 16 inches. That's why people recommend a +2 diopter, if the lens can't focus that close otherwise. The 10-24 focuses to 8 inches, so it is usable without the diopter, but it might help corner sharpness. Unfortunately it needs a 77mm filter, and I think only Canon and Marumi make decent ones (achromatic). Specs:
AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED from Nikon
If you could only have two lenses, these would be my picks.
This discussion points out the gotcha with Nikon's decision to build the cheaper bodies without focus motors. It may save a few hundred on the cost of the body, but you get locked into more expensive lenses. If you spend a little more on a better body, like a D90, you can pick the Tokina 10-17 as the wide. It's a "more fun" lens, OK, I just love it. But it's cheaper too, so the system cost of a D5000 plus AF-S lenses might be close to the cost of a D90 with the Nikon 60 and the Tokina 10-17.
These are things to consider before you buy a camera. What lenses do I want for my type of shooting? Are they available for the body I am considering? If not, think hard about other body options.
The natural choices are the Nikon 60mm AF-S for macro, and probably the Nikon 10-24mm AF-S for wide. These are safe choices. If you want a longer macro for longer working distance from timid or dangerous subjects, the 105mm AF-S is another safe choice. The Sigma 10-20 HSM lens has good reviews, but not as good as the Nikon. I had the predecessor non -HSM and did not like it, so I recommend the Nikon 10-24 if you can afford it. If only Tokina made the 10-17 in an AF-S type, but not yet.
If you use a dome, it typically shifts the infinity focus to something like 16 inches. That's why people recommend a +2 diopter, if the lens can't focus that close otherwise. The 10-24 focuses to 8 inches, so it is usable without the diopter, but it might help corner sharpness. Unfortunately it needs a 77mm filter, and I think only Canon and Marumi make decent ones (achromatic). Specs:
AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED from Nikon
If you could only have two lenses, these would be my picks.
This discussion points out the gotcha with Nikon's decision to build the cheaper bodies without focus motors. It may save a few hundred on the cost of the body, but you get locked into more expensive lenses. If you spend a little more on a better body, like a D90, you can pick the Tokina 10-17 as the wide. It's a "more fun" lens, OK, I just love it. But it's cheaper too, so the system cost of a D5000 plus AF-S lenses might be close to the cost of a D90 with the Nikon 60 and the Tokina 10-17.
These are things to consider before you buy a camera. What lenses do I want for my type of shooting? Are they available for the body I am considering? If not, think hard about other body options.
PatW
Contributor
I think people have pretty much covered it. A 60 mm macro lens would be more versatile. You could shoot fish and most small critters. If you routinely go for shy small stuff, the 105 might work best.
If you have a decent camera shop nearby, you could check them out. Also, Nikonians often has used glass available at decent prices. The 60 and 105 are both popular. Also macro lenses in many of the off brands: sigma, tamron and tokina are quite good and cheaper.
If you have a decent camera shop nearby, you could check them out. Also, Nikonians often has used glass available at decent prices. The 60 and 105 are both popular. Also macro lenses in many of the off brands: sigma, tamron and tokina are quite good and cheaper.
Similar threads
