Nikkor Manual 55mm or 105mm Micro?

[vivek iyer]

Dan, Thanks for filling in a few details.

 

Lindsay, Ignore my post re: the Rodagon. This was put together for some special requirements that I can not access from the existing line of micronikkors. Dan's suggestion about a flash is an excellent one to consider/use. Regardless of the use as a "fill flash"or the only source of lighting. The eaxmple shot (from the contraption mentioned above) here benefitted from a fill flash (from an SB-24) as there was breeze (there always is) and it was getting dark.<div></div>

[luis triguez]

nice, nice,nice.

[al_tan]

I have the 55/2.8 AIS and use it mainly as my general purpose lens. In fact, it's the most used lens among those I have as it's very sharp and contrasty.

 

I bought a 50/1.4 AI a couple of months ago thinking I could do with the extra 2 stops to complement my 55 micro. Guess what, the 55mm still gets used more than the 50.

 

Of all my lenses, I have to say that the 55/2.8 is the sharpest.

 

One downside is that the focussing is a little trickier once the subject gets beyond the 2-3 metre mark.

 

I have not used the 105 micro so can't comment on that one.

[roland_vink]

I read this thread with interest. There were several comments against the Ai and AiS 200/4 micro, I'd like to make some comments in favor of this lens. I have one of them and use it mainly for outdoor macro photography.

 

I always use this lens with a tripod. It has one of the best tripod mounts of any lens, when locked down it is absolutely solid. The tripod mount is surprisingly useful. It allows the lens and camera to balance evenly on the tripod, and you can rotate the image while staying on target. This makes the 200mm micro very easy to handle. None of the 105mm macro lenses have a tripod mount unless matched up with a PN-11 (also highly recommended for macro work). I have an arca-swiss quick release plate on my lens which I use as a mini macro slider, this is great for fine-tuning the focus and working distance.

 

By itself the lens focuses to 1:2 at 0.71m with about 0.5m free distance between the lens and subject. This is much greater than any of the 105mm macro lenses and I find it very useful for outdoor subjects which are often in hard to reach places. Most tripods will not go low enough to get a good closeups at ground level when using a 105mm macro lens. Flowers and insects are often inconveniently located on an inside branch making it impossible to set up the tripod close enough when using a shorter macro lens. The greater reach of the 200mm macro gets around these problems.

 

I often add a PK-13 tube or No 3T closeup filter to increase the magnification to around 1:1.4. You loose infinity focus with both these options but the magnification range is great for closeups of flowers and insects.

 

As for the optical quality of this lens, it is capable of exceptional images. I admit, for general photography the contrast and sharpness is not as good as the non-macro Ai or AiS 200/4 lens. It has more light fall-off too. However, quality images can be obtained by stopping down, f8 - f11 being the optimum apertures. This can make for slow shutter speeds but I always use this lens on a tripod so it is rarely a problem.

When shooting into the sun the lens will show flare so the huilt-in hood should be used.

 

Sharpness is very good in the macro range from f5.6 - f16, depending on the depth of field required. At apertures around f11 and smaller sharpness is limited by diffraction, like all other lenses, so this lens is no worse or better than any other macro lens in this range.

 

Color fringing is evident in high contrast areas near the edge of the frame, due to the lack of ED glass. Often the edges will be a pleasant out of focus blur so this rarely shows as a problem.

 

Optically the AF version is better due to ED glass and more modern optical design but when used within the optimum range it will give professional quality results. It is also much smaller, lighter and cheaper than the AF version, and the standard 52mm filter size is useful too. If you have a chance, try it out.

[dan_fromm2]

Roland Vink wrote about the 200/4 manual focus MicroNikkor: "At apertures around f11 and smaller sharpness is limited by diffraction, like all other lenses, so this lens is no worse or better than any other macro lens in this range."

 

T'ain't so, Roland. I don't have the full tests with me, but at 1:49, Modern Photography (11/80 for the 55/2.8, 7/85 for the 105/2.8, 5/81 for the 200/4) got 69/62, 69/62, and 49/44 lp/mm center/edge at f/11 and 1:49 for the three (55, 105, 200 in that order), 69/62, 62/55, and 49/44 at f/16 and 1:49 and 62/49, 55/49, and 44/44 at f/22 and 1:49. And at ALL apertures MP measured edge contrast under 30% for the 200; this isn't great, and is much worse than the others.

 

The 200/4 AI/AIS MicroNikkor is not diffraction limited even at f/22 and is relatively, not absolutely, doggy. Yes, its useful, but let's not delude ourselves that it is as good as the shorter MF MicroNikkors.

 

Yours with a yip! and a woof!,

 

Dan

[vivek iyer]

That is interesting, indeed.

 

I suggested to Anupam to forget the Vivitar zooms (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B3Jm), based on my experience with the 90-180 f/4.5 Flat field macro zoom. This lens fared similar better at 135mm in MP tests (posted at the medium format, "third party"lens archives)compared to the 200mm f/4 micronikkor. I do not own one of the 200mm f/4 microsand do not intend to get one either.

[alfarabi]

I know the choice here is between the two Nikkors but do consider the Tamron 90mm AF Macro SP. I have used it with a Uniplus 2xTC. The TC gives me additional reach and I can get this shot.

[sl attanapola]

The 105mm/f4 AIS micro nikkor is an incredibly sharp lens!