Anyone had any experience with these two lenses. Both are 2.8 and both have VR. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
The longer lens will give you more working distance, which can be a factor, especially if you are photographing something alive.
I used to have the 60mm macro and it was a fun lens. I didn't really use it all that much because the working distance was so close. If you are after insects or anything alive I would go with the 105mm. Both lenses are excellent optics and scary sharp!
I own the 60mm AF version and the 105manual focus. Both are super sharp and both make me happy. With my D300 -- or any camera that has less than a full-frame chip -- the multiplication factor makes the 60mm into something more like a 90mm.
As for the differences, I find that the reviews on each on the kenrockwell.com website explain the pros and cons pretty accurately.
His review of the AFD 60mm is at http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/60mm-afd.htm
His review of the AFD 105mm is at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105af.htm
For a list of all his Nikon lens reviews see http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm
From what I hear, take Ken Rockwell with a grain of salt. Check out Nikon Cafe...lots of information over there.
dpreview.com is another good sourse of info
I'll second that on Ken Rockwell...
Nikonlinks.com is also an excellent source of info on all things Nikon.