Nikon AF 60mm f/2.8D Micro V Nikon AF-S 60mm f/2.8G IF-ED Micro

[Mank]

Righto,

I'd like a macro lens but cant quite afford a 105mm in my situation. I would also like it to double up as a nice portrait lens too.

I know the main difference in these 2 is the AF-S has an inbuilt motor, now I have a D90 so its not an issue for me and I know most macro is focused manually anyway.

The question is, is the AF-S version worth an extra £120 or would I be better saving my money and getting the AF version? Is there any other differences I'm not aware of?

Anyone have any experience of both of these lenses?

Thanks

 

[hunter20ga]

Stupid question, I know, but is the IF lens "internal focus" while the other one is not? If that's the case, then the internal focus lens would be (for me) a much better choice as a macro lens. The working distance of a 60 mm macro is pretty small, you don't want the lens length changing on you during focusing, IMHO. At even 105 or 150 mm, that's not nearly as much of a concern.

 

[Mank]

Ahh yes, looks like your are correct:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...icro-nikkor-af-60mm-f28-d-review--test-report

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012908nikkor60micro.asp

I didn't even think about that tbh and now you mentioned I'm glad you did! I think I would much rather have internal focusing for the reasons above.

Decision made then I think.

Anyone on here have the 60mm AF-S lens?

 

[Andysnap]

This is the one I had for my D90

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...-nikon-fit-lenses/nikon-af-60mm-f/2.8d-micro/

And it was by far and away the sharpest lens I owned. Its a good macro lens but with it being only 60mm you do have to get quite close to your subject and insects don't like that..... It is however a superb portrait lens.

Andy