Trying out my new to me lens. It is a used AF Macro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8D on a Nikon D7000 body.
Still coming to grips with it but happy so far. Nice models make it easy too

 

Nice pics! Where's the pic of the lense?

 

Maybe a close-up?

 

Every one a winner !

 

Fabulous shots (and watches!) @Barking mad

100mm macro can be kind of a beast to manage, but it looks like you're doing just fine.

 

Here you go

 

loved using that lens when I had a Nikon

 

Fantastic shots! Watches are decent too
Outdoor shots or a colder artificial light will keep the steelies from looking like gold. Thanks for including THE REAL DEAL all-gold Speedy for reference. I had to wipe the drool off my phone with my shirt...
So what's the beast-character of this lens? I have a Nikon for which I have wanted a macro lens for watch photography in particular, but the cost of my watch disease always puts it at the bottom of the wish list. Is there a better value with near or equal performance from an independent lens maker? Those don't seem to be too much less expensive than OEM either!

 

@Time Exposure -- there is nothing uniquely beastly about the Nikon 105mm. Taking macro photos with a long focal length lens like a 100mm is like taking shots with a big telephoto lens outdoors: you have to worry a lot about camera movement and/or movement of your subject. A 60mm macro lens can be much easier to use for this reason, and you can still get very good close-ups. I use both, but if I know for example that I'm going too shoot details on flowers outdoors and the subject is likely to be moved about by a breeze, I opt for a shorter focal length lens.

 

Barking, I see you have a nice pic of your Ed White 105.003-63 with the "CORRECT" alpha hands!

 

Or, even easier, adjusting white balance, but to me it looks like Barking mad picked the warm lighting (and the underexposure) as his personal style.

 

If you take pictures at or close to the max (or the same) magnification, the movement effects are the same between the two lenses you talked about. The shorter lens has no advantage at all, but actually has more disadvantagess because of the shorter working distance making it more difficult to control lighting as well as more perspective distortions.

 

The OP's lens is among the best quality macro lenses out there and can be had for a pretty low price - sometimes lower than many so-so quality vintage watches. Your camera is most likely a newer and non-pro model with which the OP's lens is not compatible. There are many third party options, but if you're not a camera buff, there may be a lot of headache dealing with them. Sticking with Nikon, the latest 60mm AF-S Micro is very reasonable in price and has a top notch quality.

 

Absolutely stunning!

 

For me, working with it at my bench (where I take 100+ photos a day easily - not all with the macro lens though), the 105 would be pretty much unusable. I don't need or want a long focal distance...for taking a shot like this with my Nikkor 60mm 2.8 Micro lens, I can set the camera on the bench so it doesn't move, set the timer, press the shutter release and be totally hands off while the photo is taken (with a fairly long exposure to get everything in focus).



It all depends what you use it for. BTW I have a friend who has a Sigma brand 105 mm macro he uses on his Nikon body, and it's quite good and was a fair bit less than a Nikkor lens would be. Took this shot of my old Blancpain with it and it turned out pretty nice - just shot hand held on a picnic table on the back deck one day...



Cheers, Al

 

Someone once explained his resolution of the 60mm macro vs 100mm dilemma this way:

If you're worried your subject is going to crawl, fly, or swim away by getting too close, then the stand-off distance afforded by a 100mm macro lens is useful. Otherwise, go with 60mm because it's simply an easier lens to handle and work with.

I applied that principle when taking these photos. The first photo was taken with a 100mm lens. The second photo was taken with a 60mm lens since I was hunting nudibranchs (sea slugs) that day.

 

Sir you are far braver than I to get that close to a bee

 

I guess you use a DX camera. If it's an FX, with the 60mm, for max picture of a 24mm subject, the working distance is less than 5cm and the eye piece is about 20cm away. 5cm is not a comfortable space to work with. For DX, it'd be about 15cm which is much better. If the subject is 36mm in size, FX would give you about 10cm working distance and 25cm to the eye piece, while DX would give 20cm and 38cm respectively. With both subjects and 60mm, DX would be more comfortable to work with. But then the lens is equivalent to about 90mm on an FX body, which is closer to 105mm than to 60mm.

For the 105mm on FX with 24mm subject, you'd get about 14cm working distance and about 32cm to the eye piece. This is just about the same as you'd have with the 60mm on DX with 15cm and 30cm respectively. For a 36mm subject, you'd get 17cm and 35cm, which is not impossible to work with even on a bench (the eye piece distance is actually shorter than the DX and 60mm combination). With DX, it'd be about 35cm and 53cm, which I agree would be not easy to work with on a tall bench.

So it depends on what type of camera you have. With FX, the longer lens is more usable while with DX, shorter one is better.