Stupid question alert!

[lilmomma]

I've been thinking about purchasing a 60mm macro lens and selling my 50 b/c I just don't use it that much, but I just want to be sure on something...
Is a macro lens just for macro, or can you use it for regular shooting as well?

See told you it was dumb, but never owning or seeing a macro lens i'm curious if there is something different about it that makes it only for macro

Thanks in advance!

[craig_d]

Most macro lenses do fine work at all distances. The only exception I am aware of is the Canon MP-E 65 5:1 super-macro (I don't think Nikon has an equivalent lens), which magnifies up to 5x more than standard "true macro" 1:1 lenses. The MP-E 65 can only be used for macro work.

When shopping for a macro lens, make sure you are getting a full 1:1 macro -- there are some lenses that claim to be "macro" when really they just have closer focusing ability than average, and can only achieve 1:2 or less. I've seen lenses that could only do 1:4 that were labeled "macro".

[Qarik]

I've been thinking about purchasing a 60mm macro lens and selling my 50 b/c I just don't use it that much, but I just want to be sure on something...
Is a macro lens just for macro, or can you use it for regular shooting as well?

See told you it was dumb, but never owning or seeing a macro lens i'm curious if there is something different about it that makes it only for macro

Thanks in advance!

You can use the 60mm micro just like any other lens. The micro indicates that the min focusing distance is much shorter to allow you to get close up shots.

[NikonsandVstroms]

I use my 50mm Sigma macro for portrait work all the time, someday I might get a F1.4 regular 50 but for now this does the job.

I would try both the Sigma and Nikkor since that Sigma 50 has been one of if not the best lens I have ever owned.

[lilmomma]

thanks for the replies. I knew it had a close focusing capability, but wasn't sure if it could be used normally as well.
<TABLE style="FLOAT: left; WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; WIDTH: 1px">
</TD><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; WIDTH: 100%"><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
What is the difference between these?

Nikon AF-S 60mm Micro Nikkor F/2.8 ED (about $80 more)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Nikon AF 60mm Micro Nikkor F/2.8D

Both are 1:1... What do the S and the ED mean?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[cab.in.boston]

thanks for the replies. I knew it had a close focusing capability, but wasn't sure if it could be used normally as well.
<table style="float: left; width: 100%;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top; width: 1px;">
</td><td style="vertical-align: top; width: 100%;"><table style="width: 100%;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>
What is the difference between these?

Nikon AF-S 60mm Micro Nikkor F/2.8 ED (about $80 more)
</td></tr></tbody></table>Nikon AF 60mm Micro Nikkor F/2.8D

Both are 1:1... What do the S and the ED mean?
</td></tr></tbody></table>

AF-S means silent wave focusing, meaning you don't need the in-body motor to AF (can be used on all Nikon DSLRs, not just D90 and up). ED means extra low dispersion glass. So the AF-S ED version is basically a newer, upgraded version of the lens.

Edit: if you're interested,here is a link (http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm) that explains all the acronyms, a quick history on Nikon lenses, and which lenses can be used on which bodies.

[Qarik]

AF-S means silent wave focusing, meaning you don't need the in-body motor to AF (can be used on all Nikon DSLRs, not just D90 and up). ED means extra low dispersion glass. So the AF-S ED version is basically a newer, upgraded version of the lens.

there is anecdotal evidence that teh AF-S actually focuses a bit faster then the AF as well. All in all for $80 get the new version.

[lilmomma]

i see......Thanks so much!

[borrowlenses.com]

i see......Thanks so much!

For what it is worth ED is Nikon's equivalent of Canon's "L" line of pro glass. And some would even argue they both stand for the same thing -- low dispersion. Nikon calls it ED glass, Canon calls it UD glass.

However, Canon insists the L stands for luxury.

[cab.in.boston]

For what it is worth ED is Nikon's equivalent of Canon's "L" line of pro glass. And some would even argue they both stand for the same thing -- low dispersion. Nikon calls it ED glass, Canon calls it UD glass.

However, Canon insists the L stands for luxury.

No, I don't think that's true. If you check out Nikon's current lens offerings, (http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page) you'll see that almost all of their lenses are ED, including such decidedly consumer ones, such things as my 55-200 DX VR f/4-5.6G IF-ED, one of the 18-55 offerings, 18-70, 18-105, 16-85, etc. It is true that many of their pro lenses are ED, but having ED does not make a Nikon pro lens.

[NikonsandVstroms]

No, I don't think that's true. If you check out Nikon's current lens offerings, (http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page) you'll see that almost all of their lenses are ED, including such decidedly consumer ones, such things as my 55-200 DX VR f/4-5.6G IF-ED, one of the 18-55 offerings, 18-70, 18-105, 16-85, etc. It is true that many of their pro lenses are ED, but having ED does not make a Nikon pro lens.

I wish Nikon and Canon would do obvious tiers. Canon at least has the "L" line but from what I hear all L lenses are not created equal with some good and others amazing. And there is no clear markings for what is weather sealed.

That is what I like about Olympus they have 3 distinct levels and you know what you are buying. The base ones are sharp but not weather sealed, high grade are better, faster, and have weather sealing, and super high grade are the holy grail with F2.0 for the most part and image quality to make you :bow.

[cab.in.boston]

I wish Nikon and Canon would do obvious tiers.

I don't know much about Canon, and not even a whole lot about Nikon's stuff, since I'm relatively new to this world. But it seems like most of Nikon's pro lenses are fairly easy to determine. I think their "official" designation is that the pro lenses have a gold ring around them near the front of the lens. If there's a zoom that has constant aperture, that's an indicator, although I don't think the 80-200 f/2.8 is considered pro (and it doesn't have a gold ring). Otherwise, all the constant zooms are pro, plus there is an 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 that has a gold ring.

Anyway, I know what you're saying, but I think when it comes right down to it, anyone who has a reason (and budget) for the pro lenses will know what lenses they're looking at.

[jrmyrnsm]

You could also look into the new Tamron 60mm macro f2 which has been very tempting to me to have a 60mm macro lens that can double as a fast portrait lens with a 1 stop advantage over the standard 2.8 macros... I guess need to find some more money...

[jthomas]

The older Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF-D is a fine macro lens, but is noted for not being not very good at distance. The newer AF-S version doesn't have this limitation and makes a fine portrait lens at the right distance.

Look at the reviews (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html) of Bjørn Rørslett.

[NikonsandVstroms]

You could also look into the new Tamron 60mm macro f2 which has been very tempting to me to have a 60mm macro lens that can double as a fast portrait lens with a 1 stop advantage over the standard 2.8 macros... I guess need to find some more money...

If you don't plan on going to FX anytime soon, and the reviews of this lens are good (I haven't seen any yet) go for it.

Also the Sigma 70mm Macro is supposed to be really sharp and is equal to a 105mm in 35mm.

(I just looked at your signature and saw you have the 50mm F1.8 already so another 50 or 60 might not be the best choice, with the 70mm you will have another great focal length with a fast aperture to work with)

[lilmomma]

If you don't plan on going to FX anytime soon, and the reviews of this lens are good (I haven't seen any yet) go for it.

Also the Sigma 70mm Macro is supposed to be really sharp and is equal to a 105mm in 35mm.

(I just looked at your signature and saw you have the 50mm F1.8 already so another 50 or 60 might not be the best choice, with the 70mm you will have another great focal length with a fast aperture to work with)

thank you for all the replies. ultimately i will sell the 50mm, as i dont see a need for two lenses around the same focal length, but i like the length and want to dabble a little in macro.

Another dumb question, why don't some lenses work for full frame?

[NikonsandVstroms]

thank you for all the replies. ultimately i will sell the 50mm, as i dont see a need for two lenses around the same focal length, but i like the length and want to dabble a little in macro.

Another dumb question, why don't some lenses work for full frame?

They are designed for the smaller sensor, so if you put it on a FX format camera you will see heavy vignetting.

[ziggy53]

thank you for all the replies. ultimately i will sell the 50mm, as i dont see a need for two lenses around the same focal length, but i like the length and want to dabble a little in macro.

Another dumb question, why don't some lenses work for full frame?

Nikon "DX" lenses are designed to cover the smaller imager size of the Nikon "crop" cameras. They have a smaller image circle and will not cover a full-frame imager, like the Nikon D3/D3S/D3X and D700 cameras.

They may still be used on the full-frame cameras, but at greatly reduced resolution.

Canon "crop" lenses ("EF-S" designation) will not even fit the larger format cameras and would potentially even cause some damage if they could fit.

Many third party lenses are also of reduced image coverage, and most will fit the larger format cameras with the restriction of reduced coverage and reduced image resolution after cropping.

If you take 2 lenses, one a FF lens (FX in Nikon speak) and the other a crop lens (DX in Nikon speak), and if you hold them so that they project an image onto a piece of paper (to simulate the imager or film of a camera), you can actually see the smaller resulting projected image of the drop lens on the paper.

[NikonsandVstroms]

Nikon "DX" lenses are designed to cover the smaller imager size of the Nikon "crop" cameras. They have a smaller image circle and will not cover a full-frame imager, like the Nikon D3/D3S/D3X and D700 cameras.

They may still be used on the full-frame cameras, but at greatly reduced resolution.

Canon "crop" lenses ("EF-S" designation) will not even fit the larger format cameras and would potentially even cause some damage if they could fit.

Many third party lenses are also of reduced image coverage, and most will fit the larger format cameras with the restriction of reduced coverage and reduced image resolution after cropping.

If you take 2 lenses, one a FF lens (FX in Nikon speak) and the other a crop lens (DX in Nikon speak), and if you hold them so that they project an image onto a piece of paper (to simulate the imager or film of a camera), you can actually see the smaller resulting projected image of the drop lens on the paper.

Just for some Canon knowledge:

How does that work with canon? Does the rear element protrude into the mirror area?

Also can EF-S lenses work on the larger crop 1D sensors?

[ziggy53]

Just for some Canon knowledge:

How does that work with canon? Does the rear element protrude into the mirror area?

Also can EF-S lenses work on the larger crop 1D sensors?

I don't want to hijack this thread too much, but yes, the EF-S lenses have a shorter back-focus and a protruding rear element that could strike the reflex mirror of a larger format camera.

EF-S lenses will not mount on either the 1D/1Ds or 5D cameras because they have an extra "tab" to prevent physical mating of the lens to the camera body. Some folks have modified certain of the EF-S lenses to mount, but it is always dangerous to do so.

[lilmomma]

hijack away, ziggy....question- how do you know if it's a lens specifically designated for crop sensor? I'm assuming it's the ones that say DX? Or FX for full frame? So if it doesn't say FX or DX, it can be used on both, however a the range will be different for full vs. crop, right? But a DX lens on a full frame wouldn't work right because of vignetting and lower resolution, but FX works fine on crop but magnifies. Am i on the right track? So lets say that there is a lens that is 50mm and it's specifically designed for DX. (just throwing something out there, for hypothetical purposes...) will it be actually be 50mm or will it still be the 35mm equivalent, (85 I think???) Not sure i'm making sense, hopefully you understand what i'm asking! Thanks!

[cab.in.boston]

hijack away, ziggy....question- how do you know if it's a lens specifically designated for crop sensor? I'm assuming it's the ones that say DX? Or FX for full frame? So if it doesn't say FX or DX, it can be used on both, however a the range will be different for full vs. crop, right? But a DX lens on a full frame wouldn't work right because of vignetting and lower resolution, but FX works fine on crop but magnifies. Am i on the right track? So lets say that there is a lens that is 50mm and it's specifically designed for DX. (just throwing something out there, for hypothetical purposes...) will it be actually be 50mm or will it still be the 35mm equivalent, (85 I think???) Not sure i'm making sense, hopefully you understand what i'm asking! Thanks!

For Nikon lenses, it will have "DX" in the name if it is designed for the smaller sensor. I think Canon lenses are called EF-S if they are for the crop sensor. A non-"DX" lens can be used on DX or FX.

An FX lens on a DX body will work fine, in fact some like them because you are only using the center of the image circle, and lenses typically are worst in the corners and/or edges of the frame. So using FX lens on DX body is like hitting the sweet spot of the lens.

DX bodies have what is often referred to as a magnification factor of about 1.5. Therefore a 50mm lens on a DX body will give approximately the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm film body. The same 50mm lens on an FX body will be equivalent to 50mm in 35mm terms (no magnification factor).

DX lenses are only designed to cover the smaller sensor, so the image circle isn't necessarily going to cover the full FX sensor. Sometimes lenses do, and I've read reviews that say things like "the 10-20 lens can be used on FX bodies at 14mm and above," meaning from 10-14 you may see significant vignetting, 14-20 might be usable. But the lens is designed for the smaller sensor, so that is not the intended purpose.

So you're basically correct. FX lenses will work fine on DX bodies, there will just be an equivalent magnification. This magnification exists for DX lenses as well, though. It just means that a telephoto lens on DX gives you longer reach than on FX, and you need a significantly wider lens to get wide angle on DX bodies. That's why most kit lenses for DX bodies start at 18mm, when the equivalent kit lens on a 35mm film camera would probably have started at 28mm. Have I sufficiently confused you? :D