Nikkor Manual 55mm or 105mm Micro?

Trying to decide between the two manual micros. I have always done

still life macro but might consider trying some insect stuff if I had

the lens for it. Trying to decide if the extra money for the 105mm

is justified.

 

Any opinions on the QUALITY comparison between the two macros?

 

And an aside question, how does the quality of the 55mm macro compare

to the 50mm F1.8 when used as a regular lens, i.e. infinity?

 

Thanks for any help!

Among the 55mm Micros, the 55mm f/3.5 is sharper than any of the 105mm Micros.

 

The 55mm f/2.8 does better at infinity compared to other 55mm Micros but is not as good as the 50mm f/1.8.

 

105 f/4 Micronikkor has the advantage of longer working distance compared to the 105 f/2.8.

I think the 55mm and 105mm would be very close quality wise, but for insects you might consider the 105mm over the 55mm because of the greater working distance.

<I>And an aside question, how does the quality of the 55mm macro compare to the 50mm F1.8 when used as a regular lens, i.e. infinity?</I><P>

 

My 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is used more often as a general lens than a close-up lens. It is sharp and contrasty at all distances from my experience. Another plus is the deeply recessed front element, which is pretty tiny. This makes the ability to shoot in harsh light easy, and even with the sun almost in the frame, the lens offers high contrast images which can aid the overall perception of sharpness.<P>

 

I'll post two shots, one a full frame image from a slide made with the 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor at about f/5.6 at infinity. Nothing special, but then look at how much detail is contained in a sliver of the overall scene, about 1/80th to 1/100th of the full image. The limitation was not the lens, but the film, in this case Fujichrome 100 Slide film, which was unable to retain detail resolved by the lens. As always, the disclaimer, this is an example using jpegs. The film is what I am judging the lens by, and the film is very well rendered when using this lens.<div></div>

The two lenses have significantly different applications. If you intend to photograph living insects, the longer the focal length the better - the 200/4 (MF or AF) if you can afford it.

 

The 55/2.8 is best suited to still objects and artwork (where a 105 would usually be too long). Newer models of the 55 have CRC focusing, which makes it useful from 1:2 to 1:infinity. It is a very, very sharp lens, and often the only 50'ish lens you need to carry. It is very compact, so it's not hard to find room for it.

 

The 105/2.8 AF-D is midway in price between the 55 (or 60) and the 200 Macro lenses. Unlike the MF version, it focuses to 1:1, which is useful if you want to fill the frame with a bug's eye. At closest focus, the working distance is nearly 6 inches, so it is a good compromise for field work. Like the 55, it has CRC elements, which provide a very sharp image at any distance.

 

I have both, a 55/2.8 AIS and a 105/2.8 AF-D. Considering the amount of macro I actually shoot, that will be that. The 105 is a big, chubby lens. If it travels, something else has to stay home. A possible exception would be the 85/2.8 PC tilt-shift lens for focal plane control.

 

If you feel the need for speed, a 50/1.8 costs chump change. It is insignificantly sharper than the 50/1.4, which is a more versatile and better built lens in my opinion.

///<div></div>

Actually I have the 50mm 1.8 and spent the last week playing with a 1.4. I took it back because I didn't like the small depth of field I was getting at the smallest aperture. This is something I hadn't noticed before I bought the lens.

 

This is why I may be able to stretch my finances to the 105mm micro if there was a good reason.

 

Another question I have now: Is there a manual Nikon AIS 200mm F4.0 that is NOT a micro lens? I have found a couple of very cheap, good condition ones online but they do not say 'Micro' or even Macro. Did or does Nikon make a non-Micro version?

<I>Another question I have now: Is there a manual Nikon AIS 200mm F4.0 that is NOT a micro lens?</I><P>

 

Yes. These are very good, but lost popularity when the 80-200mm zooms of that era were said to be just as good, but with the flexibilty of coming back from the full 200mm when needed.<P>

 

I had one of these lenses in the late 1980s, and was very happy with the results. The speed was the only downside for me, and I sold it when I got a 135mm f/2.0 Nikkor.

<i>Another question I have now: Is there a manual Nikon AIS 200mm F4.0 that is NOT a micro lens?</i><P>

Yes - there is a 200mm f/4 AIS (and non AI, AI) that is NOT a micro.

Nikon made a 200/4 between 1963 and 1990, which is a so-so non-macro lens. The 200/4 IF Micro was introduced in 1981 and still in production as of 1998 (the date of my listing).

Lindsay, Vivek and I disagree about these lenses. Largely, I think, because he works at larger apertures than I do. I shoot them closeup with flash, never wider than f/13.5, sometimes as small as f/27. At those apertures I can't see any difference between results with 55/3.5 and 55/2.8, 105/4 and 105/2.8.

 

Right now 55/3.5 AI, 55/2.8 AIS, 105/2.8 AIS, and 200/4 AIS MicroNikkors live in my house. I started with a 55/3.5 (pre-AI), got a 105/4 AI when that lens was released. All are very well made, if that's what you mean by quality.

 

All but the 200 take very good pictures, the 200 takes good pictures, if that's what you mean by quality. The 200/4 AI and AIS MicroNikkors are not in the same league as the shorter manual focus MicroNikkors. Yes, there's also a non-macro 200/4 Nikkor, made in several versions. I bought a 200/4 Nikkor Q in 1970; it was an ok lens for distant subjects, especially when supported well, marginal towards its close focusing limit. I understand that later 200/4 teles were a little better, also a little smaller.

 

I've shot insects with my 55s and 105s. Its a bit easier with a 105. I don't use the 200 much for closeup work out of the house, largely because of the difficulty of using flash illumination with it. Shooting the 200 at 1:4 with flash takes larger flashes than I want to carry. This because when working out-and-about I attach my flashes to the camera body or front of the lens, and with the 200 at 1:4 flash-to-subject distance is a bit long. At home I can put the flashes on stands.

 

Note, however, that I'm still using KM (ISO 25) for my closeup photography. When I switch to an ISO 100 film, less powerful flashes will do.

 

Can't address y'r aside directly. When I bought my Nikkormat in 1970, I got a 50/1.4 with it. Later that year I was able to buy a 55/3.5. Carried both normal lenses around for most of '71, then decided that was absurd and used the /1.4 as downpayment on a 24/2.8. I never regretted getting rid of the /1.4.

 

Good luck,

 

Dan

 

p.s. Its hard to make a bad mistake with any of the MicroNikkors. If you're not sure, get a 105.

Lindsay,<br>

<br>

If you wish to photograph insects that are warmed up and ready

for flight you will find a 55 or 60mm Micro-Nikkor nearly

impossible and a 105mm Micro-Nikkor quite difficult. You will

probably want a longer lens than 105mm for these subjects.<br>

<br>

Most all living creatures maintain a comfort zone. If you move

into this zone they will move away. Ive seen a rather tame

jumping spider consistently step just out of focus from my 55/3.5

Micro-Nikkor lens. Ive seen a leaf hopper side step to the

back side of a twig as I slowly raised my finder from a resting

position on the top of my FE2 to the shutter release. This leaf

hopper did this constantly. The lens was a 200/4.0 IF AI Micro-Nikkor.

The lens to subject distance at 1/2 life size for this lens is

495mm (almost 1/2 meter).<br>

<br>

A term you should know is free working distance. This

should be the distance from the leading edge of the lens to the

plane of focus (your subject). Sometimes the term working

distance is used and it may be the same as Ive

described here but it could be used to describe the distance from

the plane of focus to the film plane. The subject to film plane

distance for the 200/4.0 IF AI Micro-Nikkor is about 710mm not

495mm. If one is expecting working distance to be the

same as free working distance one could be quite

disappointed. Many photographic terms are not precise and

universal so one must be careful when reading advertising copy.<br>

<br>

For close-up photography you can use many different lenses from a

20/3.5 AI/AIS Nikkor with a K-1 ring to a 400mm telephoto with

extension tubes and more. Your subject and the appearance you

want determines the choice of lens.<br>

<br>

<em>have always done still life macro but might consider

trying some insect stuff if I had the lens for it. Trying to

decide if the extra money for the 105mm is justified. --Lindsay

Robb<br>

</em><br>

I recommend buying both and buying the one you think you will use

most first. It would help to know what camera you are using. You

can buy an old non-AI 55/3.5 compensating aperture model and use

it on many Nikon cameras that do not accept these lenses by

always using it on an M or M2 tube. You will be limited to a

scale of 0.5x to 1.0x. The non-AI 55/3.5 compensating aperture

model can sell for a very economical price. This lens is one

Bjorn Rorsletts favorites. The 105/4.0 AI is also. You

might buy the 105mm Micro-Nikkor first and then the 55/3.5 when

you find a good deal. If you want a general purpose normal and

macro I like the 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor. Beware of my advice: in

the end I'll recommend one of everything.<br>

<br>

Here is a link to Bjorn Rorsletts mini-reviews of close-up

lenses...<br>

<br>

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

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Here is a link to his start page...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/</u></a>

<br>

<br>

There is a great deal of excellent information on the topic of

close-up and macro photography at Bjorn Rorsletts site.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Here is a table of free working distance that in includes 55, 60

and 105 millimeter Micro-Nikkors...</p>

 

<table border="1" cellpadding="4">

<tr>

<td>Micro-Nikkor Lens</td>

<td align="right">1:2</td>

<td align="right">1:1</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/3.5 Compensating (non-AI)</td>

<td align="right">110mm</td>

<td align="right">55mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/3.5 AI </td>

<td align="right">111mm</td>

<td align="right">56mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/2.8 AIS</td>

<td align="right">113mm</td>

<td align="right">56mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>60/2.8 AF</td>

<td align="right">122mm</td>

<td align="right">73mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/2.8D AF</td>

<td align="center">---</td>

<td align="right">136mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/2.8 AIS</td>

<td align="right">244mm</td>

<td align="right">173mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/4.0 AI (& AIS)</td>

<td align="right">277mm</td>

<td align="right">172mm</td>

</tr>

</table>

 

<p align="left">All measurements are mine except for the AF 105/2.8D

Micro-Nikkor. That measurement came from the Nikon brochure <u>Nikon

World of Close-up Photography</u>, 1994. Notice that the 105/4.0

AI Micro-Nikkor has the best free working distance at 1:2 by a

comfortable margin and is virtually tied for best at 1:1 with the

105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

Thanks for everyone's responses.

 

Thanks for your table Dave. I do Customer Support at a the country's largest camera store, so I do know about photography actually. When I said I was trying to decide between the two lenses it wasn't because I didn't know how they should be used. I'm just new to Nikon and wanted some opinions from people who have owned them.

 

I think I've ruled out the 200mm micro. I have access to a crapload of used equipment at bargain basement prices through work, so I think I may just buy both, try them out and then return one. And hope I don't like them both!! ACK!

 

Thanks!

"I shoot them closeup with flash, never wider than f/13.5, sometimes as small as f/27. At those apertures I can't see any difference between results with 55/3.5 and 55/2.8, 105/4 and 105/2.8."

 

Dan, At these apertures (given that you shoot Kodachrome 25ASA), you are absolutely right that no difference can be found between ANY micronikkors or for that matter between any lenses that I have used. :-)

 

Regards, Vivek.

Dave,

 

Do you have any data on the WD of the 200mm Micronikkors?

 

Thanks,

 

Vivek.

You have received great info. I think my 55mm f2.8 macro is sharper than my 50mm f1.8. Put it another way, the 55mm goes in my bag more often than the 50mm. For macro work, I still prefer using the older Nikon 200mm f4.0 macro lens over the 105mm f 2.8 AF macro which I also own and over my 55mm macro. The 200mm has a tripod collar, and is not that much bigger or heavier than the 105mm macro. The tripod collar makes it a joy to use over the 105 that lacks this feature. It was also designed to be used with Nikon teleconverters, the TC14B and the TC 301. If you want a really sharp macro and are willing to use it on a tripod 100% of the time, get the 200mm f4.0 AF macro. This lens is a beauty. Check out the price of a used 200mm f 4.0 mf macro. Dave is right. You need one of each. Joe Smith

Vivek,<br>

<br>

The 200/4.0 IF AI has a free working distance of 495mm at 1:2 (0.5x).

I dont own an AF 200/4.0D ED-IF and I have no Nikon

literature on it either. <br>

<br>

Dave.

VIvek,

 

My Nikkor lens catalog near at hand says that the WD of the AF Micro 200mm is approx. 26cm.

Oops,

 

The WD above is at the magnification ratio of 1:1.

I have a used 55 2.8 AF micro Nikkor, a lens introduced I think prior to the 60mm micro. It?s a terrific lens which close up to 1:1 by itself. Anybody can tell me what is the working distance of this lens. No manual to refer and not much info could be gathered from the net for this sharp lens.

My 55mm has served me well, very sharp, nice results. I have used it as a normal lens, and it does fine. John Shaw referred to the 105 mm lens as his money shot lens in one of his books, i.e., that it is his most useful lens for nature work. Nobody has mentioned the 180mm f2.8 lens. Many believe it is a better lens than the 200mm f4, and, once it was introduced, eclipsed the latter in the marketplace. Do remember you can also use a 5t or 6t filter for occasional close up work. A whole lot cheaper. Just a thought.

Thanks, Akira.

Many thanks, David. After much wrangling, I decided to fabricate a lens with a longer WD on my own. A 150mm f/5.6 APO Rodagon G lens housed in a 105mm f/4 focus mount with a matrix chip. Does fantastically at infinity and extremely well even at its closest distance (1/2.5X) with a WD of 46cm. Even with an added 2X TC, the image quality seems to hold up very well.

Since I have the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro, I just did a quick measurement, which is a bit rough. The working distance from the front to subject is about 44.5 cm (17.5 inches) at 1:2. At 1:1, it is about 25.5 cm (10 inches).

 

If the subject is some kind of insect that you can disturb, the 200mm macro has a big advantage over the shorter ones. Moreover, its tripod collar is another major plus. I bought the 105mm/f2.8 AF macro first and once I got the 200mm macro, I rarely use the 105 any more.

Lindsay and others, I hope you all got the point of the little exchange above between Vivek and me.

 

If you're going to shoot at apertures smaller than f/11 and you're going to use films no sharper than KM it doesn't matter which MicroNikkor you use. If you're going to shoot at larger apertures with higher resolution films, which one you use can matter. By the way, the only color films I'm aware of that are sharper than KM are long discontinued. Current E-6 films don't beat KM and for my purposes have the drawback of being faster.

 

But for the kind of closeup photography most of us do, the only lens attribute that matters -- given, of course, a lens that's half-decent or better -- is working distance. Vivek does other things, more power to him.

 

Since you have access to lots of gear, Lindsay, ask the lenses what they can do for you. Use the same film and subject for all and, if you can manage it, light your test shots with electronic flash. I suggest flash not because its the best way of lighting for your purposes -- I don't know them, so can't offer suggestions -- but because its the best way to eliminate the effects of motion.

 

Good luck, have fun,

 

Dan