105mm f/4 macro

I'm giving serious consideration to purchasing a used 105mm f/4 macro

lens.

 

Is this lens a pretty decent macro lens? Is the f/2.8 105mm macro

worth the difference in price (aside from the 1 stop speed)? The f/4

version is substantially cheaper. I'm mostly interested in using

something beyond a 55mm macro.

 

Is there anyone who owns or has owned the 105mm f/4 that can share

some advantages?

 

Are the third party offerings such as the Vivtar and Tamron 90mm's

worth considering? Do they have enough of a difference in color

rendition than Nikkors?

i own the f4 version, it is a phenomenal lens, every bit as good

as the f2.8, but just one stop slower. i think the 2.8 is worth the

price if you need the speed. my f4 looks awesome at f4, i cannot

say enough good things about that lens. i love macro lenses and

flat field lenses in general.

I recently asked poeple for info on Sigma and Tamron Lenses see thread - Tamron 90mm F2.8 Macro or Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX macro.

 

I went with the Sigma mainly for the extra focal length. I have just got back (yesterday) my first film shot with this lens and I am really happy with the pictures. This is the first time I have used a macro lens so cant compare to anything else, but so far so good. I havent posted any (at all) pictures yet, but I will when I get a chance as it would be nice to get opinions from other poeple. Generally it seems that both the Sigma and Tamron are very good and that whatever macro lense you chose you cant really go wrong.

If you are only going to use the lense for macro work, then I guess F.28 over F4 shouldnt be a factor, as you would want as much DOF as possible and thus using much smaller appertures. If you are going to use the lense for other type of work, then this might be a consideration

But Im new to macro photography (one roll of film) so dont take my word for annything.

The 105/4 is somewhat unique in that it is a 'simple' lens that does not feature CRC or other focal-length shortening schemes. It focusses close by having a honkin' big helicoid, period. It only goes to 1:2 on its own, you need the 52.5mm extension tube (is it PN-11?) to get to 1:1.

 

What does that get you? Nearly unmatched working distance. The only way I know to get this kind of working distance around half life size with other lenses is to jump up to the 180 - 200 mm macro range.

 

I have only played with a borrowed 105/4, but it's on my list of lenses to snap up if I ever find a deal. I have an AFD 105/2.8. The AFD lens is extremely easy to use (infinity to 1:1 with no extra bits) but the working distance difference between the two lenses close in is startling. The AFD lens shortens up to something like 75mm effectively close in.

Yeah Todd said it! With the price of used 105/2.5's these days, I wouldn't hesistate to get one of these too rather than the 105/2.8 micro. 105/4 micro is on my hit list.

I am not familiar with the design of the 105mm/f4 macro, but as we discussed in another thread, when you approach 1:1, you have to lose some cimbination of focal length and (maximum) aperture. Therefore, if the 105mm/f4 can stay as a 105mm at macro range, it is not going to be f4 any more. When you start from f2.8, you have a brighter image in the viewfinder for critical focusing to begin with. When you start from f4 and lose something, very soon we are talking about f5.6 and it'll gradually become difficult to make critical focusing for macro. Of course f5.6 is typically not an issue for actual shooting as most macros are done at very small apertures.

 

Whether a dim viewfinder image is going to be a problem highly depends on your individual situation. If your macro involves shooting inside a rain forest that is drak to begin with, it can be a serious problem. If you are shooting indoors at a copy stand with plenty of light, it may be a non issue.

There's certainly a lot to Shun's observation, but with a 6x chimney finder, all (dim) sins are forgiven.

I have an AI'd version. It's battle-scarred, but only cost me $50. (Hee hee. :) ) The images are sharp. This isn't a gorgeous shot but it will give you an idea of what the lens can do. I'm happy enough with it that I won't bother with an f/2.8.<div></div>

<em>"Is this lens a pretty decent macro lens?" --Jack

Johnston<br>

</em><br>

Very decent, Its <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com"

target="_new"><u>Bjørn Rørslett's</u></a> favorite 105mm Micro-Nikkor.

At 1:1 (life size) its effective focal length is 210mm not 120 to

184 as the estimates go for the AF 105/2.8D and 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkors.

The 105/4.0 give the most free working distance, the AF 105/2.8D

the least, the 105/2.8 AIS sits in the middle.<br>

<br>

When used with the PN-11 tube the 105/2.8 AIS Micro has a

weakness. At 1/2 life size with the tube the CRC (floating

elements) are in the infinity position. This means image quality

will suffer and the lens needs to be stopped down to over come

this. There are gray makings on the 105/2.8 AIS suggesting the

maximum aperture to use for quality results. They are...<br>

<br>

f/11 at 1:2<br>

f/5.6 at 1:1.6<br>

f/4.0 at 1:1.3<br>

f/2.8 at 1:1<br>

<br>

To over come this in part the PK-13 tube can be used before the

PN-11 tube. By using as much of the 105/2.8 AIS Micro's helical

as possible the CRC will be closer to the macro position. This

lens focuses to 1:0.88 or just past life size.<br>

<br>

* For serious macro I recommend the 105/4.0 AI or AIS Micro. Its

less trouble if you need to set a specific image ratio for

scientific purpose. Its noted to out perform the later

manual focus version by 1:2. The loss of 1 stop in maximum

aperture is of no concern for serious work. It does not effect

focus or composition enough to even consider it with a camera

like the F3 or F5.<br>

<br>

* For a great combination lens I recommend the 105/2.8 AIS. You

might want to add a Zeiss Softar #1 for portraiture. For a

general purpose lens the faster maximum aperture of f/2.8 is very

welcome.<br>

<br>

The K screen will black out with either of the manual focus 105mm

Micro-Nikkors when used at close-up and macro distance so I

recommend the U, B or E screen for the F3 and F5.<br>

<br>

* For auto focus obviously the AF 105/2.8D. Do add a Zeiss Softar

#1 for portraits as this lens has harsh bokeh (as seen in on-line

samples).<br>

<br>

I own the 105/4.0 AI and 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor. Ive

meant to run them off but just havent gotten to it. The AF

105/2.8D lost me with its very short free working distance.

If the AF 105/2.8D had at least the free working distance of the

105/2.8 AIS Id own the AF lens now.<br>

<br>

Some may consider the need for an extension tube with the manual

focus versions a detraction. I consider the PN-11 with its

rotating tripod collar a definite advantage.<br>

<br>

You can find Bjørn Rørslett's evaluations of these lenses here...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html"

target="_new"><u>Special-Purpose Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount</u></a><br>

<br>

I do not see any of these lenses as a replacement for the 105/2.5

IC, AI or AIS as I dont see the 105/2.5(s) as a replacement

for them. I recommend the 105/4.0 and 105/2.5 over the 105/2.8(s).<br>

<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

I have owned all of the 105mm nikon lens at some point or other for macro purposes. The 105mm F4 micro has been the sharpest of all of the lenses. Going back over 15 years the K25 slides from this lens still stand head and shoulders above others for sharpness. I was seduced by the extra stop of the MF F2.8 when I returned to the Nikon fold but it is clearly not better IMO. Now I have the 105 AFD because of a chip need on a d100 but I am very tempted to buy another 105mm F4 and have it converted because the AFD is such an unsatisfying lens to use in MF and isnt as sharp.

 

Dave

As mentioned the 105/4.0 Micro looses no focal length, the effective focal length gets doubled to 210mm and therefor the effective aperture gets cut to f/8.0.

 

I estimate the 105/2.8 AIS Micro�s focal length as 92mm at 1:2 so the effective focal length becomes something like 184mm at 1:1. The 105/2.8 AIS exhibits papillary magnification so the exposure factor is 4.7x not 4.0x of the earlier lens. The 4.7 exposure factor comes from the 105/2.8 AIS Micro�s manual. The new maximum aperture or effective aperture at 1:1 is about f/6.3. Technically an exposure factor of 4.7 indicates a need to open up 2.24 stops.

 

Whatever you do, do not stop either of these lenses down to f/32 and hope for the best. You will be working at an effective aperture of f/64 with the 105/4.0 and f/72 with the 105/2.8 and the image quality will, well it will suck.

 

Don�t be put off by all this tech stuff. If you use TTL metering, either ambient or TTL-OTF flash you can just shoot.

 

Again, best macro: the 105/4.0 AI or AIS Micro. Best general purpose lens the 105/2.8 AIS Micro. Best portrait lens the 105/2.5 IC, AI or AIS. Best combination the 105/4.0 and 105/2.5. NAS requires that you own all three ;)

 

f/8 and be there,

 

Dave Hartman.

If you already have the 55mm macro, I suggest you consider the 200mm f 4.0 macro manual focus lens from Nikon. It has a built in tripod collar which makes the lens a lot easier to use than the 105mm. You can get .5 to 1 magnification w/o a tube and more with an ext tube. I do not know what the comparative prices are for the 200mm f 4.0 vs the 105 f 2.8 or f4.0. Joe Smith

Thanks everyone for your replies.

 

It sounds to me that the 105mm f/4 is worth purchasing. I actually won't mind using a PN-11 tube, especially if it has a tripod mount, and the more working distance the better.

 

Joseph: The 200mm f/4 is frankly out of my price range. After investigating, this lens generally sells for around $300-400 used & I'm not willing to spend that much.

Also - can anyone tell me what the differenceis between the PN-1 and PN-11 tubes?

The PN-1 is a pre-AI tube. It will not fit AI cameras with a fix aperture coupling lever, FE2, FM2n, etc. It will give full aperture metering with cameras like the Nikkormat FTn, EL & ELW, Nikon FTn and Nikon F2 Photomic (DP-1), etc.

 

The PN-11 is an AI device but it will fit pre-AI cameras. On AI camera the PN-11 gives full aperture metering. On pre-AI cameras one must use stop down metering. Both tubes give 52.5mm of extension.

 

The PN-1 can be used with AI cameras like the F2A, F2As, F3, F3HP and F4s by lifting the aperture coupling lever (please see photo).<div></div>

I myself really want this very same lens....I could afford the similar Sigma but the Nikon is much better. I don't know what *kind* of macro you do...but the below website...has some AMAZING work...just to show the capabilaty of the lens.

http://prismes.free.fr/macro1.htm

Joseph Smith suggested it as an alternative to the 105/2.8 AI (or AIS) or 105/4 AI (or non) MicroNikkor. Per Modern Photography's test and my experience with two of them, it is the softest of the MicroNikkors. Low contrast (MP didn't get much better than 40% at any aperture) and not that sharp (MP never beat 50 lpmm at any aperture, IIRC). And it gets very much shorter as it focuses closer.

 

Don't misunderstand. It is usable, just not great. The 105s and 55/2.8 are much much better, but shorter. In my experience one would be better off with a 105 and a 55/2.8 than with a 55/2.8 and a 200/4.

 

Note that these comments apply only to the 200/4 AI/AIS MicroNikkor. The 200/4 AF is a different design and by all accounts an outstanding lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

<p>thank you for all that information.. i am the proud owner of the nikkor 105 F4 macro with pk-13 tube, as well as the 55mm macro 2.8 which i use on my Nikon F3.. I have tried them all as well. i had a 200 f4 and rarely used it because of the weight and almost everything i shoot is handheld and with a non AF camera it makes for some serious steadying of the hand and with a MD-4 motor-drive it is very hard for me to keep a steady hand with all that weight added then having a 200 F4 macro lens to boot.. therefore i use a 105mm nikkor macro with focus lock which is becoming more rare these days to find that lens. The one i have on ebay is in pristine condition and has rarely been used .. i have a few macro lenses and just dont find it necessary to own that many macro lenses. I love macro photography about as much as any kind i have shot over the last 30 years.. and i will have to agree with all the daves out there that made comment about the Nikon nikkor F4 macro.. It is a fabulous lens and i could care less about having a 2.8 105mm .. It just doesnt make any difference to me and frankly, i shoot alot of f4 shots and BTW the 2.8 version Ai-S lens is not any better than the105mm F4 version Ai-S lens.. there are those diehards that only a 2.8 or faster will work for them. I have several lenses that i prefer as portraits. like the Nikon 85mm 1.4 lens. now that is a beautiful piece of glass. although i am considering buiying the Zeiss version Nikon mount 85mm1.4 which is about 1200.00 , but i shoot alot of people so this is important to me. well, i have added my 2 cents worth.. thanks for all the input you guys and gals,..,. keep the ball rollin and God bless ...Dave from Mount Holly, NC</p>