Macro (Micro) Lenses

[Chasman]

I have a Nikon D3000 camera body with an 18 - 55 lens and a 55 - 200 lens. I can take some nice pictures of my tank with these lenses but the depth of field is limited since niether has macro capabilities. Nikon makes a 60mm f/2.8 as well as a 105mm f/2.8 with vibration reduction. The 60mm does not have vibration reduction but all of my tank shots have been done on a tripod. The difference in price is pretty large. The 60mm is $540 and the 105mm $890. These are not zoom lenses, but at f/2.8 they are pretty fast. Both can handle the 11 point AF of the camera body.

I'm thinking (hoping) the 60mm is the way to go. I get nice framing with my 55mm I just can't focus it down. Some of the nicer pics I've taken are with the 200mm zoomed all the way in but that is where I lose the depth of field. The framed shot is about the same.

Any thoughts?
Chasman

[zhenya]

I have a Nikon D3000 camera body with an 18 - 55 lens and a 55 - 200 lens. I can take some nice pictures of my tank with these lenses but the depth of field is limited since niether has macro capabilities.

To be honest, depth of field has nothing to do with a lens being macro or not. It all has to do with the size of your lens's aperture. The smaller the size of the aperture (larger f#, I know it sounds weird) the larger depth of field will be. For example, f2.8 has much shallower DOF than f8 and so on.
I believe Nikon still makes their standard Nikkor 105mm f2.8 lens without VR ? If so, I would get that instead of the 60mm. Has longer reach (to reach things that are in the back of the tank) and is a heluva portrait lens to boot. ;)
I'm Canon shooter myself, and use 60mm from Canon and 105mm from Sigma ( I hate that lens because it is a terrible copy) but the Sigma is just about shot.

PS. Have a look at this thread, it explains DOF (depth of field) perfectly.
What is Depth of field?

[Chasman]

Thanks Gene

I guess what I meant about the depth of field is if I can get the camera closer my actual light capture is greater and I can stop it down to increase my DOF.

I'll look for one of the 105's without the VR feature. I'd rather have the 105 as well. Hard to justify the price though.

Thanks Again
Chasman

[gregr]

The term you guys are talking about is "minimum focus distance". Another useful term is "image magnication". Manufacturers throw the "macro" label around a lot when it's not appropriate. They also fail to list lens magnification specs a lot too and that makes it hard to know what a lens is capable of. True macro means 1:1 image magnifcation. Just trying to be helpful ""

[woogiekids]

I'm a Canon user, but I love my Tamron 90mm and I'm pretty sure that they have a Nikon mount version.

[returnofsid]

I think you'll be much happier with the 105mm Macro. This offers you very close focusing distances, and still gives you the magnification for the real "macro" shots. It gives you a true 1:1 representation of the subject, as well. The 60mm just doesn't magnify quite enough. Keep in mind that our eye sees at about 52mm. So, a 60mm is only a lil' more magnified that we see with our own eyes.

By the way, the 105mm Macro will also make an amazing portraiture lens.