I'm thinking of purchasing a Nikon Micro lens for my D7100, either the 40, 60 or 105VR. I want to shoot some flowers outside, and then see what else I get interested in. I was thinking the 105 might be best for that. But, I also have a copy stand that I might want to take advantage of down the road to possibly take photos of watches, coins and small objects. I'm guessing the 40 might be best for that? But I don't know? Any ideas and experiences?

Tom B. wrote:I'm thinking of purchasing a Nikon Micro lens for my D7100, either the 40, 60 or 105VR. I want to shoot some flowers outside, and then see what else I get interested in. I was thinking the 105 might be best for that. But, I also have a copy stand that I might want to take advantage of down the road to possibly take photos of watches, coins and small objects. I'm guessing the 40 might be best for that? But I don't know? Any ideas and experiences?hi tom, this is just my suggestion. it seems to me that you dont know exactly of what you want to shoot. AND I wanna recommend nikon 40 afs for you. why? this is why1) its cheap. at only 279 dollars, you dont spend a lot of money here. this way, you can get exposed to macro photography and you start small. and even if you think one day that 40 afs is not really what you want because of short working distance, etc, you can sell it and you wont lose a lot.2) Its light. and i have 1 for myself. before i bought 60 afs, but sold it. why? first, its kind of heavy and the 40 focal length is more useful  to me, since you can walk around with it. not the case with nikon 60 afs. and because the weight is so light, its so enjoyable to carry it with you all the time.personally, i can highly recommend nikon 40 afs. i bought it and so far, its been my favorite walking around lens. i sold my 35 1.8 afs and get this one instead. much more useful.even if you get 105 afs, i wanna tell you that you may not use it because it is heavy. and also, for me, taking pictures of bugs is challenging anyway no matter what lens you are getting. you have to be very vvery close. and a lot of time, i use my macro lens to take pics of everything around me like flowers, coins, etc.

nikonfreak wrote:Tom B. wrote:I'm thinking of purchasing a Nikon Micro lens for my D7100, either the 40, 60 or 105VR. I want to shoot some flowers outside, and then see what else I get interested in. I was thinking the 105 might be best for that. But, I also have a copy stand that I might want to take advantage of down the road to possibly take photos of watches, coins and small objects. I'm guessing the 40 might be best for that? But I don't know? Any ideas and experiences?hi tom, this is just my suggestion. it seems to me that you dont know exactly of what you want to shoot. AND I wanna recommend nikon 40 afs for you. why? this is why1) its cheap. at only 279 dollars, you dont spend a lot of money here. this way, you can get exposed to macro photography and you start small. and even if you think one day that 40 afs is not really what you want because of short working distance, etc, you can sell it and you wont lose a lot.2) Its light. and i have 1 for myself. before i bought 60 afs, but sold it. why? first, its kind of heavy and the 40 focal length is more useful  to me, since you can walk around with it. not the case with nikon 60 afs. and because the weight is so light, its so enjoyable to carry it with you all the time.personally, i can highly recommend nikon 40 afs. i bought it and so far, its been my favorite walking around lens. i sold my 35 1.8 afs and get this one instead. much more useful.even if you get 105 afs, i wanna tell you that you may not use it because it is heavy. and also, for me, taking pictures of bugs is challenging anyway no matter what lens you are getting. you have to be very vvery close. and a lot of time, i use my macro lens to take pics of everything around me like flowers, coins, etc.Thanks, sounds like good advise, makes sence to me.

Will all three of these lenses work on a normal size copy stand? Or is the 105VR too long and focus distance too far? Keep in mind objective is coins, watches and items of that size.

You could save some money with the 60mm G; it weighs less, has very little distortion, a little more working distance, Nano* if that is important to you and is a good copy stand lens. It gets down to 1:1 although some of the objects you mentioned don't require 1:1 so you should have enough working distance and a portrait lens for general photography or a normal lens should you ever get into FX.

Tom B. wrote:Will all three of these lenses work on a normal size copy stand? Or is the 105VR too long and focus distance too far? Keep in mind objective is coins, watches and items of that size.It sounds like you're not going as close as 1:1 ( the D7100 has a 16mm X 24mm sensor; at 1:1, it will cover a 16mm X 24mm field of view). The 40mm will focus down to 1:1 but at that setting the object is very close to the lens and it's hard to light it. It gets much better at lower magnifications like 1:2 or less. So I would recommend the 40.The longer lenses give you more working distance at 1:1 but will not allow you to cover as much area before you run out of travel on your copy stand.

Tom B. wrote:I'm thinking of purchasing a Nikon Micro lens for my D7100, either the 40, 60 or 105VR. I want to shoot some flowers outside, and then see what else I get interested in. I was thinking the 105 might be best for that. But, I also have a copy stand that I might want to take advantage of down the road to possibly take photos of watches, coins and small objects. I'm guessing the 40 might be best for that? But I don't know? Any ideas and experiences?I've never owned the 40mm and because I no longer use DX, probably never will, but it has superb reviews. The only downside is working distance and that doesn't bother me most of the time.I own the 60 f/2.8 and it's an excellent lens. It's one of the few magic lenses I call them because of the rendering it gives. It is simply beautiful.I was not satisfied with my copy of the Nikon 105 VR. For some reason, it just didn't have that crisp rendering I expect from a great macro lens. Instead I now own the Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro which does have that rendering as well as plenty of working distance for biting critters.In your case, I'd probably get the 60 f/2.8G AFS model. As good as the 40 is supposed to be, I know the 60G and I think it would serve a little better over time. I would avoid the older 60 f/2.8D model with the aperture ring. I was not particularly happy with it's rendition nor normal range sharpness. I sold it.Good luck and take care.

60mm is barely close enough for watches on DX body, I don't see how 40mm will work period. I'd get the 105mm if you want to get REALLY close.

When you're at 1:1 lifesize and that's as close as they all get, they're equally close. It's just working distance at 1:1 that is different. Macro means 1 to 1. They'd all have to same coverage on the sensor.

Mebiuspower wrote:60mm is barely close enough for watches on DX body, I don't see how 40mm will work period. I'd get the 105mm if you want to get REALLY close.Neither of the images you posted are near 1:1; I'd guess those watches have a case diameter around 40mm. So the first one is roughly 1:3 and second one maybe 1:2. The 40mm, 40mm and 105mm are all capable of 1:1 magnification, producing a field of 24mm X 16mm on DX.All that happens is that the 40mm has to be closer to the work than the 60mm, which has to be closer than the 105mm.What 60mm lens do you have that won't focus close enough to photograph a watch?

Guidenet wrote:When you're at 1:1 lifesize and that's as close as they all get, they're equally close. It's just working distance at 1:1 that is different. Macro means 1 to 1. They'd all have to same coverage on the sensor.Unfortunately if one wants to take detailed, close-up shots of the watch movement requires more than 1:1 magnification. You're probably looking at 3:1 or 4:1 magnification below.

Leonard Migliore wrote:Mebiuspower wrote:60mm is barely close enough for watches on DX body, I don't see how 40mm will work period. I'd get the 105mm if you want to get REALLY close.Neither of the images you posted are near 1:1; I'd guess those watches have a case diameter around 40mm. So the first one is roughly 1:3 and second one maybe 1:2. The 40mm, 40mm and 105mm are all capable of 1:1 magnification, producing a field of 24mm X 16mm on DX.All that happens is that the 40mm has to be closer to the work than the 60mm, which has to be closer than the 105mm.What 60mm lens do you have that won't focus close enough to photograph a watch?Watch is 44mm. I can't get any closer in the 2nd photo because the lens would be blocking my strobes from lighting up the watch face, thus the need for at least 60mm or 105mm.I shot it with the Nikon 60mm f/2.8.

Sure, but that wasn't the point, was it? The point was that a longer lens at 1:1 covers the sensor the same as a shorter lens at 1:1. The same would hold true at 4:1, wouldn't it? The length helps to provide working distance if the magnification is equal.

Guidenet wrote:Sure, but that wasn't the point, was it? The point was that a longer lens at 1:1 covers the sensor the same as a shorter lens at 1:1. The same would hold true at 4:1, wouldn't it? The length helps to provide working distance if the magnification is equal.That wasn't my point. My point is if you want higher than 1:1 magnification ratio, you need to get a longer lens. Period.Sounds like some people do more technical reading here than shooting!

Mebiuspower wrote:Guidenet wrote:Sure, but that wasn't the point, was it? The point was that a longer lens at 1:1 covers the sensor the same as a shorter lens at 1:1. The same would hold true at 4:1, wouldn't it? The length helps to provide working distance if the magnification is equal.That wasn't my point. My point is if you want higher than 1:1 magnification ratio, you need to get a longer lens. Period.Sounds like some people do more technical reading here than shooting!But that's not true. You don't need a longer lens to get higher magnification. You just need to be able to focus closer. That's all. You need to put the lens elements farther away from the focal plane. You can use extension tubes, a bellows, or some make macro lenses that extend farther like the Canon 65mm.http://www.adorama.com/CA6528AFU.htmlIt has nothing whatsoever to do with getting a longer lens. A Nikon 200 f/4 Micro goes to 1:! as does the little 40 f/2.8. Niether exceeds that on their own. Closer focusing and focal length are not the same thing. I'm not trying to start a fight or pick on you here at all.Notice that the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is not a very long lens yet it can go to 5:1. You can take a short lens and put it on a bellows and exceed that. The lens isn't a longer focal lenth. It's just farther from the focal plane or sensor. It doesn't zoom. It just extends like crazy.Anyway, take care and have a great week.

Mebiuspower wrote:Guidenet wrote:When you're at 1:1 lifesize and that's as close as they all get, they're equally close. It's just working distance at 1:1 that is different. Macro means 1 to 1. They'd all have to same coverage on the sensor.Unfortunately if one wants to take detailed, close-up shots of the watch movement requires more than 1:1 magnification. You're probably looking at 3:1 or 4:1 magnification below.That's a whole nother thing and not what the O.P. was looking at. I have a 65mm Canon MP-E to take that shot. 65mm. Goes to 5:1.

Mebiuspower wrote:Watch is 44mm. I can't get any closer in the 2nd photo because the lens would be blocking my strobes from lighting up the watch face, thus the need for at least 60mm or 105mm.I shot it with the Nikon 60mm f/2.8.Right. When you shoot with short macro lenses, the lens tends to block the lights. That makes it more appropriate to use a longer lens like the 105. But that's not what you initially said.The O.P. wants to shoot flowers, and maybe small objects on a copy stand. A 105mm on a copy stand quickly runs out of travel. This is what I use for a copy stand:MP-E65 at 5:1

Thanks for the information everyone. I have a copy stand with side mount adjustable lights. I don't want to have to get so close that I'll be blocking the light. It sounds like the 105vr might be the choice as long as I don't run out of travel? Is that what I am getting from reading this thread?

The 105 2.8 VR will be the best for flower, or insect as you'll have more working distance.  With the shorter macro lenses, you'll need to physically get closer to your subject to get a 1:1 or life-size image.On the other hand, for your second application, coins, stamps, etc on a copy stand, the shortest macro lens will be the better choice, depending on your copy stand.  On the other hand, the 105 2.8 VR macro minium focus distance is 12" (30 cm), so depending on how high your copy stand goes, it may work fine to get 1:1 images of coins and other small objects, and it may actually give you more room to light your subjects.Since you are using a DX body, the Nikon 60 2.8 Macro may be a good compromise, as it's extremely sharp, and it acts as a classic 90mm macro lens on DX.  A 90mm macro lens will give you a good amount of working distance you in nature for example, you won't need to be right on top of shy insects, and you'll have room for the lens hood, or lighting.You could also look into the excellent Tamron 90 2.8 SP Macro.  This is a wonderful lens, with similarly great optical performance to the Nikon equivalent.  The Tokina 100 2.8 is also a fine lens which like the Tamron, will save you a considerable amount of money vs the Nikkor 105 VR.  The new Tamron 90 2.8 VC (Vibration Control) has gotten excellent reviews so you might consider it as well.  It has improved on the previous version Tamron 90, especially at max aperture, where the earlier version is not great.  The new 90 2.8 VC is extremely sharp straight from f2.8, so it can double as an extremely sharp portrait lens with VC.All that said, I wouldn't over think this dilema too much as almost all macro lenses are excellent optically.  But if you already have a 50 1.8, the 40 2.8 DX macro (and the 60 2.8 macro) are a bit too close to the 50mm lens.  So if I were you, I'd probably go for either the Nikon 105 or one of the third party 90, 100 or 105 Macro lenses.Best of luck and happy shooting, Markus

marike6 wrote:The 105 2.8 VR will be the best for flower, or insect as you'll have more working distance.  With the shorter macro lenses, you'll need to physically get closer to your subject to get a 1:1 or life-size image.On the other hand, for your second application, coins, stamps, etc on a copy stand, the shortest macro lens will be the better choice, depending on your copy stand.  On the other hand, the 105 2.8 VR macro minium focus distance is 12" (30 cm), so depending on how high your copy stand goes, it may work fine to get 1:1 images of coins and other small objects, and it may actually give you more room to light your subjects.Since you are using a DX body, the Nikon 60 2.8 Macro may be a good compromise, as it's extremely sharp, and it acts as a classic 90mm macro lens on DX.  A 90mm macro lens will give you a good amount of working distance you in nature for example, you won't need to be right on top of shy insects, and you'll have room for the lens hood, or lighting.You could also look into the excellent Tamron 90 2.8 SP Macro.  This is a wonderful lens, with similarly great optical performance to the Nikon equivalent.  The Tokina 100 2.8 is also a fine lens which like the Tamron, will save you a considerable amount of money vs the Nikkor 105 VR.  The new Tamron 90 2.8 VC (Vibration Control) has gotten excellent reviews so you might consider it as well.  It has improved on the previous version Tamron 90, especially at max aperture, where the earlier version is not great.  The new 90 2.8 VC is extremely sharp straight from f2.8, so it can double as an extremely sharp portrait lens with VC.All that said, I wouldn't over think this dilema too much as almost all macro lenses are excellent optically.  But if you already have a 50 1.8, the 40 2.8 DX macro (and the 60 2.8 macro) are a bit too close to the 50mm lens.  So if I were you, I'd probably go for either the Nikon 105 or one of the third party 90, 100 or 105 Macro lenses.Best of luck and happy shooting, MarkusThanks for all the good information. I checked my copy stand and it will go up 29". So, I think I have room for a 90 or 105. I do have an older Nikkor 55mm Micro, but the bellows extends really far when focusing and I can't seem to properly light the subjects. I'm thinking these newer lenses with internal focus will take care of that problem.  I see the new Tamron 90 2.8 VC is around $750 and the Nikon 105vr about $100 more. My gut instinct is telling me to get the Nikon?? The minimum focus distance on the 90 and 105 is about 12". The 105 is 4.6" long.  The camera depth to lens is 2" for a total of 18.6" leaving about 10.4" of travel on the copy stand from minimum focus to the top of stand. I would think this would be enough adjustment For watches, coins and items of that size?