# Macro Lens Differences 85mm vs 60mm



## Aniretalek (Sep 17, 2014)

Hi all,

I am a PhD student, focusing  on marine biodiversity of benthic invertebrates. The university department is going to buy a Nikon D7000 (with a 18-105 lens) along with an Ikelite Housing and we need a macro lens in order to take close up photos of marine life.
The dealer that is going to provide the camera is recommending the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR (AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR from Nikon because it does not require and extra Lens Extension for the Ikelite Housing, since it matches the one that fits the 18-105 lens.
A friend of mine, a semi-pro photographer, told me that it the 85mm is not appropriate and we should get the AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED (AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED from Nikon But this lens requires an extra extension and the total cost, goes over the available budget.

I would like to know, if there are any huge differences between the two lenses, keeping in mind that they are going to be used professionally. Instead, they only should be able to take decent close-up pictures of marine life.

Thank you in advance!!


----------



## Overread (Sep 17, 2014)

I'd say go with the 85mm. 

It fits your budget - does macro up to 1:1 magnification and fits the housing for the underwater case. The difference between f2.8 and f3.5 is very small so its not worth worrying about - esp as you might using additional supplemental lighting along with your shots and closing the aperture down so that you can get more depth of field over the subjects.


----------



## KenC (Sep 17, 2014)

The other factor in photographing any critters that can move away from you is the lens-subject distance.  This will be greater at longer focal lengths.  For bugs and other small living things, at least a 100 mm lens is probably advisable.  I know Canon has a 180 mm macro and I imagine Nikon has something similar - this would be worth considering.


----------



## Aniretalek (Sep 17, 2014)

Overread said:


> I'd say go with the 85mm.


Thank you for your thoughts...I was thinking quite the same! 



KenC said:


> For bugs and other small living things, at least a 100 mm lens is probably advisable.  I know Canon has a 180 mm macro and I imagine Nikon has something similar - this would be worth considering.


Thank you for your contribution. I think we will stick with the 85mm for now. After we gather some experience with the challenges of underwater photography (and apparently some extra money...), we will consider upgrading to something more professional!


----------



## Overread (Sep 17, 2014)

Honestly pretty much any macro prime will give high quality results on todays market. They are all top rate optics. The key is camera operation - user control and lighting (which might be the hardest thing for you working underwater where you might not have an easy time of it).


----------



## MOREGONE (Sep 17, 2014)

Yeah I would go with the 85, plus it has VR. I think that will be very helpful while trying to control buoyancy.


----------



## greybeard (Sep 17, 2014)

as Overread wrote, 2.8 vs 3.5 is pretty meaningless when it comes to a macro lens.  I never go below f/11 with mine.  The 85 should do just fine as long as you never go full frame as it is a DX lens.  I use a 105 micro and love it but it might not fit the housing you are looking at.


----------



## WayneF (Sep 18, 2014)

Close up and Macro 1:1 are different things.  Hard to imagine 1:1 underwater.    But when focused at 1:1,  the 60mm AF/S lens has a "working distance" (in front of lens) of 50mm (less than two inches).  This scares bugs, and the lens itself tends to block the light, it gets in your way.  However, it is great for like on a copy stand copying documents, which is more like 1:8 (merely closeup), and the copy stand simply could not be tall enough for a longer lens.  Similarly, some rooms are not large enough for a DX 105mm tabletop scene (but non-macro lens could do that).

Longer macro lenses have longer working distances, for example the 105mm macro is closer to 6 inches in front of lens (for the same 1:1 view).  I don't know a number for the 85, but it should be proportionately in between.  The numbers speak of "on land".

The other difference is of course, one is 60mm and one is 85.  85mm is a magnification, and, on land, it has to stand back 40% farther to see the same full view as the 60 sees.  Both are "telephoto" for DX.  Since underwater already adds telephoto, 85mm could be a problem getting a wider view (other underwater people could better advise, but if they advise wide angle lenses, the 85mm is counterproductive to that - there is a 40mm macro lens too).  If using flash, 40% greater distance could double the necessary flash power level.


----------



## Aniretalek (Sep 18, 2014)

@WayneF 


Thant was quite an analysis! You provided some food for thought...Although I think I am leaning towards the 85mm for a number of reasons...But still, thank you for your contribution! I will provide some photos when we finally get the camera!!


----------



## ruifo (Sep 18, 2014)

You should try to get longer focal lengths (85mm, 90mm, 105mm or 150mm) for a good 1:1 macro work, specially in live subjects, to maintain some distance and avoid scaring them, and making them swing/fly/run away from your lens.

Some good options for Nikon bodies are as follow:

Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Lens 2190 B&H Photo ($527)

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Di MACRO 1:1 VC USD Lens AFF004N-700 B&H - ($749.00)
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS Macro Lens for Nikon AF Cameras - ($669.00) - There is some $300 off here, as normal price is around $1,000. I use this one, and it is a very sharp and well built option. AF is not so fast, though. Make sure to get the HSM version (with AF motor inside the lens).
Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens 2160 B&H - ($839.00)
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro Lens (For Nikon) 106306 - ($1,099.00)
Here are my sample shots with the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 HSM lens:
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro 1:1 - an album on Flickr


----------



## Coasty (Sep 18, 2014)

I have the 60mm and you have to get real close to get 1:1. 85mm would be the best bet as others have said.


----------

