Nikon 60mm or 105mm VR

[scottg541]

Hello all,

I am at the beginnings of a ramp up to a digital SLR underwater set up, spending a year with the camera (D200) and a couple standard lenses, and saving money for a housing purchase next year...

the step that is next is purchasing the macro lens, so i'm wondering if anyone has experience with either of these two that could give me some insight.

Obviously, the 105mm VR is expected to be better, but the price is double...

Is it worth it?

Thanks in advance,
Scott

 

[lifeisfullofgooddives]

if you search there are some earlier threads on this exact subject.

 

[vladimir]

You might need to register:

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/nikon-105mm-vr-review/

 

[alcina]

You'll end up with both of these most likely

The 60mm macro is perceived as easier to use and it will allow you to shoot a wider range of subjects on the same dive.

The 105mm macro is considered harder to make sing, but it's a beautiful choice. You are more limited with your subject matter with this lens.

 

[Warren_L]

Here's a thread: http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=174943

 

[scottg541]

Thanks all!

that's what i needed, for some reason did not see those earlier.

Scott

 

[danishDiver]

I had the same problem, i ended up with a 60mm lense, and i am very happy with it.
Since i bought also a Tokina 12-24mm for my liveaboard wreck safari starting this monday.

These pictures:
http://galleritest.dykkeren.dk/Galleri/Red Sea/2007/index.html
Where taken with the 60mm lense, unfortunatly in a dome and not the flat port, i got since.

 

[Mariozi]

take a look at ByThom.Com review of the new 105.
You might want to consider the old one, especially for UW work.

Quoted from PopPhoto.Com review:

"CONCLUSION: Some users have griped to us about the lens' inability to deliver its four stops of VR sharpness at close-focus. But in our opinion, that's a moot point. We can almost guarantee that 95 percent of users shooting at 1:2 and closer will be working from a tripod, obviating the need for VR. (Which is exactly our case underwater)

If you're not on a tripod, you'd better have plenty of aspirin on hand, because staring at that hugely magnified viewfinder image as it swings wildly in and out of focus with every breath you take is bound to be migraine-inducing.


This VR system is designed primarily for the nonmacro portrait range, because that's where it's most valuable. Don't want VR in your macro lens? Nikon's 105mm or 60mm f/2.8 non-VR Micro-Nikkor lenses are a more affordable alternative. For our money, however, the VR is worth the extra $170 over the cost of the 105mm, even if it doesn't extend completely to 1:1."

 

[girellator]

And what about the 105 mm sigma ???
I own it and alsothe 60 mm nikkor .
But I think you should buy first the 60 mm !!:bfish:

 

[f3nikon]

Hello all,

I am at the beginnings of a ramp up to a digital SLR underwater set up, spending a year with the camera (D200) and a couple standard lenses, and saving money for a housing purchase next year...

the step that is next is purchasing the macro lens, so i'm wondering if anyone has experience with either of these two that could give me some insight.

Obviously, the 105mm VR is expected to be better, but the price is double...

Is it worth it?

Thanks in advance,
Scott

What makes the 105 VR better underwater? The water will dampen the vibration much than in air so I do not see any advantage in using the VR lens. Plus with U/W photography the flash will add to the light and stop the action, so slow shutter speeds (which are affected by vibration) are not needed. I would find a 105mm macro without the VR.