[JohnR]

A couple of test shots from my brand new lens, in fading light this evening. Just shot in JPEG, no processing at all.

First shot with this lens

I tried to get closer but the baby mantis ran away... I guess that's why I have a 200mm macro as well..! Handheld at 1/15 sec, f4.5 (close to max aperture at this magnification), ISO 800.

Can you say "narrow depth of field"?

A lick of paint on an old deck railing. 1/15 sec, f/4.8, ISO 800.

Summary

I spent more time playing with ahem I mean testing it in the shop than I have since I got it home. (One guy in the store joked that I had to buy it because I wore it out already!)

Likes. So far, it seems very sharp from open to at least f/11 at close up. I'm not convinced by long distance, it doesn't seem to match from what I can tell so far. Bokeh you can see for yourself above. 62mm filter size is the same as my 200mm macro, so that must be good... somehow...  Fast auto focus if you're using it. Just grab the ring to override for manual focus, although you have to keep your finger on the shutter release or it will refocus again - I ended up just switching to all manual for closeups. Quite light, and since it should also double as a 90mm equiv portrait lens (testing this weekend), it might just end up being glued to my D40. Price - well, it seems pretty good to me, 1/3 of what you pay for any of Nikon's Pro zooms.

Not so likes. Not built like a tank, if that's important (but I'm fine with that, the relatively light weight is a good tradeoff). Don't like the plastic bayonet hood, I don't think it will last.

Looking forward to getting more out of this lens!

[Russell Dawkins]

If I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing, that is an insanely narrow depth of field on the second shot (the paint)!

On the lick of paint, the depth of field looks to be about 1/2" or 12 mm.

[JohnR]

Hi Russell, the lick o' paint is about 3/4 inch long, so the DOF is probably more like 2 mm!

It's interesting how easily (for want of a better word) it transitions from the in-focus area to out of focus. I've not seen this before (although admittedly I've not looked for it either...)

[denjo]

JohnR

Very, very nice shots!

I once owned the predecessor, the legendary 55 mm Micro-Nikkor (manual focus). Built like a tank! Wish I had not sold it. The other lens that I have used that I liked very much was the 105 mm Micro-Nikkor, again it was manual focus.

Best regards
Dennis

[nathanm]

If I didn't know better I'd say that last one looks exactly like what Photoshop's "Lens Blur" filter does at high settings; it gives you a small slit of sharpness with like a gradient of progressive blur on either side.  I never saw a lens do it unadorned, though.  Weird.

[brj]

I had the same thought... that is a phenomenally narrow depth of field, and the transition into and out of it seems much sharper than I would have expected.  Looks pretty sharp in the focused region, however!

[craig223]

The very small depth of field is "normal" for this lens.  When my wife shoots jewelry, she has to stop down to f16 to get everything into focus.  This requires lots of light and a tripod.  Great shots from a brand new lens.

[JohnR]

Not a lot of time to process the images but I'm having fun with this guy! Here's a picture of my niece -

A versatile and generally excellent lens, IMHO. Two thumbs up

[bz79]

I know a couple other photographers that use that Nikon macro and they love it!  Congrats on the great lens. 

That shallow DOF is great, I can get similar results with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro but it's very tricky because if you're off by just a hair the shot is blown.  Which you can see why in that paint shot you took. 

[JohnR]

I was at a friend's house taking some portraits yesterday and had a brief opportunity to take a "what is that?" shot. Any takers on what this is?

[PeteG]

Look's like hail (nice shot). I'm looking at a canon 100mm or 50mm macro lens, if I get it I don't what to use it a couple times and let it sit.

[JohnR]

Heh, that was too easy It's a bit unusual to get hail in Sydney AU.

I'm liking the 60mm because I can use it for a bunch of stuff. My 200mm, because of the weight and size, is more for a dedicated macro shoot kind of occasion. I have no idea about Canon lenses but there is always the trade-off on working distance vs. weight/size (assuming image quality is comparable). Personally I am at present liking have a lens at both extremes of the macro lens ranges, but as always YMMV.

JohnR

[bz79]

Here are two pics using my Canon 100mm macro both images are 100% no cropping nor any other manipulation.  Both are at f/2.8. 
In the ruler picture, which is showing millimeters there is obvious barrel distortion.  But stop it down to f/5.6 or lower and barrel distortion is eliminated.

Newspaper text from an article talking about some frog that looks like a squished jabba the hut.


Ruler showing millimeters.

[nathanm]

I just read that article online, something about a frog with no lungs.

That's some seriously short depth 'o field there.  John's shot must be a small particle of melting ice I assume, but it does look like some kind of wooden spoon with a ball in it.