In article <330381b0.85724195@nntpserver.swip.net>, henrik.elowsson@island.liu.se says...
>On 13 Feb 1997 16:41:19 GMT, "Glenn D. Turner"
> wrote:

>>1 Why are lenses for macro work labeled "Micro"?
>Micro-Nikkors is the designation for all Nikon macro-lenses, i.e.
>those that go to 1:2 or 1:1.
>>2 If both lenses go down to 1:1, (they do), which is better? Is it just >>a matter of lens-subject distance and/or depth of field?

>The 105 gives more lens-subject distance than the 60.
>BUT At the same magnification you have the same DOF, i.e. 1:1 at f:32
>gives the same DOF with either 60 or 105.
>
>Both are great lenses, actually one of the reasons I got into the
>Nikon system. I prefer the 60 as I like the short working distance
>(about 9 cm at 1:1) but many say the opposite. (The 60 also has 62 mm
>filter thread with fits better with my other equipment, the 105 is 52
>mm..)
>
>The 105 has the advantage of being very versatile, it can also be used
>as portrait lens but it's hard to focus at normal distances. (the 60
>is also a great normal-lens though, stopped down to 5.6-8)

To which I would add...: if ultimate sharpness near 1:1 (as opposed to middle
and long focus distances) is the goal, the 60 is sharper than the 105 at
wider apertures (which you may not want to use, for DOF reasons); and, if
you want to go above 1:1 magnification using a teleconverter, the 60 works
better with them than the 105, generally giving sharper images.
Hope This Helps