Nikon 105mm w/ 1.7X or 200mm?

<p>A couple of months ago I dropped my 105mm micro AF-D on a rock in the desert. It still works as a manual focus lens, but the barrel is too mashed for AF. It's a struggle to turn the lens in certain spots. So even though it works, I'm thinking about replacing it, especially in light of the news (to me) that the 1.7X teleconverter I use on my 300/4 AF-S will also work on the 105mm AF-S.</p>

<p>My 200mm micro is an old Ai-S version and only goes to 1:2, so I've been thinking about replacing that lens too. I love the reach of the 200mm vs. the 105mm, but I really want be able to move in on certain subjects to get 1:1.</p>

<p>So I'm wondering if using a TC on a 105mm AF-S is actually any good, or what. In a perfect world I could easily afford both lenses as well as a slave -- er, I mean, assistant -- to carry my gear. But I'm thinking about just having one new macro lens, either the 105mm which I could use a TC with, or a 200mm that gets 1:1. Any of your thoughts on the pros and cons will be most welcome.</p>

<p>The 200mm f4 may be the oldest of the AF micro-Nikkors (with the 60mm and the 105mm being replaced recently by AF-S VR models) but it's a gem. It may be the sharpest, most contrasty lens that I've ever used. And it has a rotating tripod collar that's at a good balance point for medium to heavy FLSRs and DSLRs. Do you shoot with a tripod? A rotating tripod collar is about the most wonderful feature a lens can have. (I find myself frequently using my 70-200mm f2.8 in places where a prime would be more appropriate, because of the wonderful rotating tripod collar).</p>

<p>I've not been that impressed with the 105mm VR alone. My experience is that it's softer at high magnifications than a lens in this price range should be. I'd say that they compromised its macro performance (sharpness and CA) in exchange for better performance as a portrait lens. They tried to make it do a lot of things, and ended up with a lens that does all of those things adequately, but doesn't shine at any of them. And, no rotating tripod collar.</p>

<p>I would really hesitate to put the 105mm VR on a 1.7x TC. The 105 VR, by itself, is 14 elements in 12 groups. That's 24 air/glass surfaces. The TC-17E is 7 elements in 4 groups, for another 8 air/glass surfaces. 32 air/glass surfaces, in a macro? That's twice what a 200mm f4 has (13 elements in 8 groups, 16 air/glass surfaces).</p>

<p>If your budget will cover a 200mm Nikkor, I have one silly idea for you to consider. Possibly the finest macro lens ever built is the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 Makro-Planar. It only goes to 1:2, you need 50mm of extension tube to hit 1:1. Nikon made a sturdy tube called the PN-11 (not to be confused with the PK-11) that's 52.5mm long, has contrast baffles inside, and a rotating tripod collar. It's not as convenient as a lens with a rotating tripod collar of its own, but it's a step in the right direction.</p>

<p>Using a teleconverter with any lens would be my dead last choice for closeup photography.</p>

<p>I find that my 105/2.8 AFD Micro is the least used in my collection. Closeups in nature work best with longer focal lengths, for working distance and background control. Closeups indoors lend themselves to shorter lengths (flat art and documents). If I had a 200/4 Micro, I would probably use it. Instead, I use a 55/2.8 AIS or an Hasselblad with a 120 "Makro" or 180 lens and extension tubes. Focal length is focal length as it effects magnification and working distance. For moderate closeups, a 300/4 AFS works very well on my Nikon.</p>

<p>I have used a teleconverter for "closeups" with a 70-200 VR, but the image quality is unremarkable. More important, a TC requires a lot of clearance between the flange and rear element - clearance which a 105 Nikkor of any flavor does not have.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I've actually been checking out the Zeiss. I even joined their Flickr group. Hardly anything they shoot is macro, but there's lots of excellent photography. I already have a PN-11. I agree that the 300/4 AF-S is great for close-ups, but it doesn't cut it for macro.</p>

<p>Although, now that I think about it, I've never tried it with the PN-11. Sooooo, I just did. It fit! The PN-11 on the 300/4 and 1.7X give about a 1:1.7 magnification with a working distance of 38 inches. Pretty interesting! That's the same ratio I get with the PN-11 on the 200/Micro Ai-S, by the way.</p>

<p>It's funny that one poster used the phrase "Closeups in nature work best..."</p>

<p>"Closeups in Nature" is the title of a classic macro photography book by John Shaw, an adherent of combining teleconverters and extension tubes with long lenses.</p>

<p>Nikon, themselves, are also advocates of the use of teleconverters with macro lenses. Before they designed the AF Micro-Nikkors (60, 105, and 200mm) that go to 1:1 without tubes or converters, the Nikon manual focus macros only went to 1:2. The Nikon recommended way of getting to 1:1 was by pairing the 55mm f2.8 with the PK-13 tube, the 105mm f4 with the PN-11 tube, and the 200mm f4 with the TC-300 2x teleconverter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>More important, a TC requires a lot of clearance between the flange and rear element - clearance which a 105 Nikkor of any flavor does not have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the new 105mm f2.8 VR micro-Nikkor has the rear element clearance to accommodate the latest Nikon TC-14E II, TC-17E, and TC-20E III. I do not advocate this particular combination only because I believe that the 105mm f2.8 VR is</p>

<ol>

<li>Severely compromised, compared to other Nikon macro lenses, and barely adequate optically without a TC.</li>

<li>Too complex (as I mentioned earlier, 14 elements in 12 groups, 24 air-glass surfaces) for use with most teleconverters.</li>

</ol>

<p>But it's not true that "a TC requires a lot of clearance between the flange and rear element", only that the Nikon "E" series converters do. Nikon's manual focus TCs included the short converters, TC-14A and TC-200, that could be used with virtually any lens, because they did not extend into the lens, as well as the "long fast" Nikon teleconverters, TC-14B and TC-300 (a 2x converter, despite what the name would imply). The Nikon E converters are a "one size fits all" compromise, tweaked to work better with the 80-200mm f2.8, at the expense of their performance with the 300-600mm lenses.</p>

<p>The respected Kenko PRO-300 converters are the modern equivalents of the old Nikon short converters, and will also work with virtually any lens made, except those that require mirror lockup.</p>

<p>So, a simple macro lens, with a well matched converter, can perform surprisingly well. You have to look very closely to notice any degradation when using a Nikon 60mm f2.8 with a Kenko PRO-300 1.4x TC.</p>

<p>I doubt there is any phrase used to describe a type of photography that has not appeared as a book title. I used the term "closeups in nature" paired with "closeups indoors", not in reference to a particular book. Backgrounds are a prime consideration with the former, and as repeatedly emphasized in "Closeups in Nature" by John Shaw (which I own) , are best controlled using longer focal lengths.</p>

<p>If you don't notice a degradation in quality by the insertion of a TC, you simply aren't looking very closely nor critically. Shaw devotes a whole chapter to Rube Goldberg combinations of lenses for various applications, including cine and microscope lenses mounted doggie-style on standard camera lenses with tape and hose clamps. I'm not sure he can be taken entirely seriously in this regard. For my part, I'll stick with extension tubes and/or bellows.</p>

<p>I'm surprised no one has updated Shaw's book for the digital age. There are folks using sub-DSLR cameras with their increased depth of field abilities (due to smaller sensors) to do remarkable work. The whole field of focus-stacking is new and eliminates the need for long focal lengths to isolate a subject against a background. True, you can't always focus-stack your subject, but still. Even mirror lock-up was much more critical to sharp photos in older film cameras than it is in mirror-slap-dampened DSLRs. Improved ISO capacities have given us more options in exposure settings. Flash is much easier to get good results with. I've even seen amazing macro photography done by placing the subject on a flatbed scanner, another tool that didn't exist when Shaw wrote that book.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shaw devotes a whole chapter to Rube Goldberg combinations</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shaw writes lucidly, and gets good results. Can you say the same?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised no one has updated Shaw's book for the digital age.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny you should ask. The one I'm working on is called "The Macronomicon".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are folks using sub-DSLR cameras with their increased depth of field abilities (due to smaller sensors) to do remarkable work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a fallacy, and I address it. Depth of field is proportional to two things, physical aperture size (in mm) and final magnification to a print of a given size. Most of the really "remarkable" point and shoot work you see is done at diffraction limited resolutions that make it look "remarkable" only on web galleries. It's too soft for print.</p>

<p>But you're right, the game has changed, in so many ways, that there's all sorts of things that need to be addressed. Writing is a surprising amount of work, and it's not helped by my tendency to start on a new book before finishing the last one, so that I end up juggling four books at the same time.</p>

<p>Interesting. I'll be looking for your book. I also couldn't resist posting a link to John Hallmen's Flickr page (he's the guy I was thinking of when I used the term "remarkable"). I think it would be interesting to anyone into macro: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/johnhallmen/">http://www.flickr.com/people/johnhallmen/</a></p>

<p>Hi John.</p>

<p>I've chatted with John Hallmen before. I think he and I are the only two people using the Novoflex MagicBall for macro. Although he uses it full time, and I only use it for certain types of shooting (preferring the Acratech ultimate or the Manfrotto 405 gear head for most missions).</p>

<p>I've never seen him use a P&S, he's normally a bellows shooter.</p>

<p><em>The whole field of focus-stacking is new and eliminates the need for long focal lengths to isolate a subject against a background.</em></p>

<p>Focus-stacking is an interesting technique for increasing the apparent depth of field, but does not replace the basic geometry by which long lenses control (i.e., limit) the background by reducing the field of view. Shaw illustrates this quite clearly. The wider the field of view, the more likely the background will contain bright (or dark) patches which compete with the main subject. The background will always be out of focus, but it helps a lot if there is less of it.</p>

<p>Smaller sensors have a greater depth of field for the same angular field of view, even if the ultimate magnification (subject vs print) is the same. The theory behind this phenomena is explained quite well in Bob Atkin's website (<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com">www.bobatkins.com</a>).</p>

<p>Oh cool. I've got a stalker.</p>

<p>For those with open minds, focus stacking controls the background in two ways.</p>

<ol>

<li>It lets you use a much wider aperture than you would normally shoot the macro at. It's not uncommon in macro photography to use an effective aperture past the diffraction limit (typically f11 on an APS sized DSLR or f16 on a FF DSLR or 35mm film, when the desired output is an 8x10 print). Macro lenses typically have marked apertures down to f22 or f32, and effective apertures as low as f64 at 1:1. Focus stacking can let you shoot at an effective aperture 8 stops higher, resulting in both a much sharper subject (no diffraction) with 16x as much background blur.</li>

<li>Focus stacking software produces essentially a 3D image, commonly called a "depth map", that can be used to cleanly "mask" the subject for background blurring (or outright substitution) in a manner that is both easier and more realistic than typical "magic lasso" selection of an object.</li>

</ol>

<blockquote>

<p>Smaller sensors have a greater depth of field for the same angular field of view, even if the ultimate magnification (subject vs print) is the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fascinating, that my stalker is attempting to "correct" a statement that isn't what I actually said. "Depth of field is proportional to two things, physical aperture size (in mm) and final magnification to a print of a given size."</p>

<p>I use all three Nikon macros and love them all. The 200/4 is a remarkable lens, but so is the 105/2.8 VR and 60/2.8. I would love to try the Zeiss, but the 1:2 limitation would render it much less useful for insects. My next lens acquisition is the 85 PC-E - tilting to alter the plain of focus.</p>

<p>I am a bit confused by some comments here talking about magnification differences between the different focal lengths. Unless I am crazy, all of the Nikon macro lenses have 1:1 reproduction ratio. A 200mm lens does not offer a greater magnification than the 60mm lens. The teleconverter, however, does increase magnification proportionate to the teleconversion. I do underwater macro photography and I choose between my 60mm and my 105mm not based on magnification but based on how close I want to be next to the subject matter (when underwater, closer is better because you want to minimize the water between the lens and the subject matter, and your shadow is not a factor since you use strobes; but sometimes you can't get too close because the little guy is too skittish, and in those instances the 105mm works a little better because of the farther reach of the lens. But when both lens are operating at their closest focal distance, they both provide 1:1 reproduction. At least that is how I understand it. Oh and I love my 105mm with TC-17EII combo, yes it's a lot of elements going on, but there are no superior alternative to super macro underwater, the 200mm is just too big to operate underwater and there would be way too much water between the lens and the subject matter such that you'd get backscatter all over the place.</p>