1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Nikon 55 af vs. 105 af: Newbie Question

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by grt_napa, Jun 16, 2007.

  1. I recently acquired a 55mm 2.8 af and have had spectacular (for me) results). Given my susceptibility to Lens Lust I have since acquired a 105 2.8 af and am still in a learning / orientation mode.

    Given the 105's ability to go 1:1 (or even greater with my Kenko Pro 1.4) should I consider selling the 55 mm?

    My use - flowers on hikes around Napa Valley and possibly an occasional attempt at an insect shot.

    Thoughts/suggestions welcomed! Thank you...and with my best,
  2. I think the 55mm will be largely eclipsed by the 105's more working distance, better optics, etc.

  3. When I go out with the intention of shooting flowers, I usually take all three macro lenses (55/f2.8, Tamron 90/f2.8, 200/f4) - and I usually end up using them all. Honestly, if I were to leave one behind, it would probably be the mid-range one, not so much because it isn't up to it, but more that I can stretch the longer and shorter ones into the middle.

    It's my opinion that there's little enough difference in the optical quality of the macro lenses that I don't bother trying to figure out which one is best (or worst). They're all killer sharp.
  4. Brian is surely right. At the beginning I too was "measurbating" myself (what a horrible word! Who the heck invented it??? :Sick: ) looking on which macro worked better, but, as you can easily see, all macro lenses are great and exceptional optics to use. As also Brian said, I'd focus mostly on the distance you should be shooting. A 50/70mm lens works fine with objects, but you have to be very close to them and this means the risk of covering useful light, unless you use a flash. A 90/105mm is a more versatile lens range; while 150/200mm lens (even with a TC) I'd use mostly for insects and little animals which could be scared by your closeness.
  5. No why would you sell the 55? As you said it is killer sharp and als it is dirt cheap-

    I sure wont sell mine.

    I find I use the 55 and the 70-180mm most of the itme and the 105 more seldom
  6. Here are five images from my three macro lenses. They're all from this morning, it's not a hall-of-fame kind of selection. Guess which ones are from which lens:

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    The choices are:
    55/f2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor
    90/f2.8 AF Tamron
    200/f4 AFD Micro-Nikkor
  7. I'll take a whack :) 

    1) 90
    2) 55
    3) 200
    4) 200
    5) 55
  8. Thanks for the insights. The 55mm is now resting comfortably in my modest macro collection earmarked for flowers while I gear up to use the 150 (bumped with my Kenko Pro 1.4) for attempts at insects.

    I value (and greatly appreciate) your collective counsel. with my best, Gordon
  9. Actually, 200, 55, 90, 200, 200.
  10. I'll never sell mine. Here is a pic taken with the 55mm.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.