105mm VR Micro-Nikkor f/2.8G not compatible with PK tubes

Hi folks,

 

I have just got a AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED with nano crystal

coating, this lens has a filter thread of 62mm.

 

In the English part of the manual, section "14. Incompatible Accessories", it says:

 

- Auto ring BR-4 and ***ALL MODELS OF AUTO EXTENSION RING PK, K RING*** and

bellows focusing attachment.

 

I know this lens comes in several flavours and everyone seems to have a specific

type of it. I would pretty much appreciate to hear from people who has the same

lens as mine as described above.

 

1. Have you tested it using the extension tubes, be it the PK or the Kenko ones

and what the results were, did it damage the lens? did it work at all?

 

2. The manual says that it is compatible with Nikon's teleconverters (with the

loss of AF but not VR and AE), and now I am curious. If you stick a

televconverter, already knowing we are losing one or two f-stops, what effect

will it have on a Micro lens? Will it make it go above 1:1, 2x, 3x perhaps? Will

it just increase the working distance whilst keeping an unmodified magnification

of 1:1? What will a teleconverter do to a micro lens?

 

3. Stooooopid question, I warn. Does the principle of lens inversion applies to

micro lens the same way it applies to other prime and zoom lenses?

 

4. Perhaps, you have answered this in question 3 but here we go: what is the

difference between a 105mm micro lens and a common 105mm prime lens?

 

Many thanks before hand for those who have knowledge of this specific lens and

can help!

 

Cheers,

 

Luis

Just in case that might matter to anyone. The lens is mounted on a Nikon D2Xs which according to the lens manual makes the 35mm equivalent focal length go to 157.5mm.

1. You can put this lens on extension tubes, but there is no way of controlling the aperture.

 

2. If the lens goes to 1:1 by itself, it will reach 1.4:1 (1.4X life-size) with a 1.4X converter.

 

3. Yes, but see point (1).

 

4. A dedicated Micro lens is designed to have a flat image field and even sharpness across the frame. For distant scenes it might not perform as well as a "normal" 105 mm (the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor is an exception and might be even better at infinity).

 

By the way, the focal length of the 105 mm VR lens is 105 mm no matter what camera it is mounted on.

Bjørn, it's an honour to have one of my questions answered by you.

 

Many thanks for your reply, short and thorough, exactly what I needed to know. Well done with Nærfoto (http://www.naturfotograf.com) as well, I never buy anything that you haven't reviewed there.

 

Regards,

 

Luis

Best chance is with Kenko DG extension tubes. They have 7 pins to transfer signals from the lens to the camera.

 

The 70-200/2.8 VR, AF-S, lens has 10 pins and transfers more signals. Seems that the VR function could not be transferred ? However, perhaps usage of VR for macro would not be recommended anyhow, nor the AF-S, as manual focus and camera on the tripod is the way to go, metering shoud work OK.

Aren't the extra pins for use with TCs, not VR? I think so.

 

VR on the 105mm may be useful for certain kinds of practical situations where you need to take close-ups and can't use a tripod due to practical reasons. Not 1:1 but something a bit less challenging. AF-S certainly is useful. Again, not necessarily at 1:1, but there is a wide range of applications for a micro-nikkor which don't involve shooting at such high magnifications.

I have often wished that my Micro Nikkor 105 had VR when photographing in museums where flash and tripods are not allowed. AF is still useful as 1:1 imaging is seldom necessary for this application.

 

To Illka: I believe that you are correct in that the additional pins allow the camera to sense the addition of a teleconverter. (The data is fed back to the lens and not to the camera body directly.)

"The 70-200/2.8 VR, AF-S, lens has 10 pins and transfers more signals. Seems that the VR

function could not be transferred ? However, perhaps usage of VR for macro would not be

recommended anyhow, nor the AF-S, as manual focus and camera on the tripod is the way to

go, metering shoud work OK."

 

Bjorn somewhere in his site (link above) says and shows that the use of a lens with VR

switched on on a tripod has adverse effects on the final picture. I might not be using the right

nomenclature but effectively the VR should be turned off when using a tripod.

I've searched around the site and can't find the VR/tripod discussion- can someone help me find it please? I'm puzzled by that issue and am sure would find it quite helpful.

 

Bjorn- your website and photos are beyond magnificent- they're an inspiration to learn more and do better. Thank you.

My VR/tripod discussions were linked to the reviews of the 200/2VR and 300/2.8VR. I did experience the same practical issues with the 105VR, by the way.

 

Please note that most affordable tripods are not really stable, and that the tripod collars on most VR lenses are poor, so if you're pressing such items into service, it might be a good idea to check out the results with or without VR on. I'm using the best tripods there are and see no reason that 1/4-1/15 sec should be problematic shutter speeds, but with VR on, they certainly are since some shots are hopelessly blurred, and this occurs in an entirely random fashion. Also note that VR or not becomes a moot point when you go above some 1/100 sec exposure time, except for the potential delay of the shutter release when VR kicks in (I'm speaking from experience here and have lost a few shots because of this).

 

Like AF(S), VR is an useful feature, most so if it can be switched off and put only to good use when absolutely necessary. I find myself using VR for say less than 1 out of 100 shots. The VR version of the 300/2.8 AFS Nikkor has such a poor tripod collar that I decided to keep my Mk.I AFS lens instead and forego VR for this focal length.

"Bjorn somewhere in his site (link above) says and shows that the use of a lens with VR switched on on a tripod has adverse effects on the final picture." - that is correct opinion, as well as Nikon own recommendation. Parked VR position of the lens will always perform better optically than VR in any other incidental VR working position.

Sorry, Frank, you lost me there. But probably it is me who is misunderstanding that waht you

are considering correct information is actually the opposite of what I quoted from

Bjorn? Could you elaborate a bit more please?

 

Many thanks,

 

Luis