Choice of a micro lens.

[sim_m]

Hi,

I am looking for a micro lens for my D300 between 105mm VR, 105mm f2.8 (the model that was before the VR

model) and seen some nice results from a Nikon 105mm f4 Micro. Any suggestions please. I love sharpness.

Thanks,

Simon.

[juanjo_viagran]

all 3 are SHARP...

 

I had all 3 (also the 105mm 2.8AIS) no complains with any, but my fav. is the 105mm VR, more than anything for the FAST AF, make it more useful than the others... also IMO have nicer bokeh.

[alex_lofquist]

Have you considered th 85mm f/2.8 tilt/shift Micro Nikkor? It may be the sharpest of all Nikon macro lenses! It's certainly the most versatile.

[john_chimoskey1]

Because Thom Hogan ( http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm#autofocus ) is enthusiastic about its sharpness

and convenience, I bought, second hand, a now-discontinued Micro-Nikkor 70-180 mm f4.5 to 5.6 ED zoom lens. It is an

AF lens but not an AFS lens. It is not capable of 1:1, the best is 1:1.33 at 180 mm (per TH). It has a rotating tripod collar

and is very sharp, but it is slow to focus (rarely an issue for me). Note well, zoom is the thing for me! Zoom is very

helpful when doing macro work because once subject and camera are positioned it is often possible to tweak

composition by zooming in or out, rather than having to move either subject, camera or both. I also sometimes need a

macro zoom lens that allows shorter working-distance. The other lens that I use is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC

HSM Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLRs. (I believe TH also likes this lens but can't find the reference.) It allows closer

working distance that I require sometimes. It focuses very fast and is very sharp. However it's maximum reproduction

ratio is only 1:3. I can not over emphasize how much easier macro-shooting is with zoom lenses. For general use I like

VR a lot, but have become so hooked on zoom for macro work that I can't revert to a single focal length to get VR. (I

have an 85 PC lens too, but PC is almost never an issue for me with an effective focal length of 127.5 mm on a DSLR.

In theory of course it is possible to increase the plane of sharp focus beyond that attainable simply by stopping-down

alone. The 85 mm PC is very sharp, but to use it properly is slow work.) I mostly use the zoom lenses for macro work

and I use them on D300.

[mark_williamson6]

I haven't tried the non-VR 105 or the 105 f4, but I LOVE my 105 VR 2.8.

[ronald_moravec1]

The new VR while nice is a very large lens. Some have written it is not as sharp at 2.8 as the previous. But who does macros at 2.8? Also AF is normally not used in micro work.

 

I had a 1.05 2.8 AF D and it was a more than decent lens. It was a loaner and I returned it.

 

For a month now, I have had a 105 2.5 AI than cost $100. This is the later Gauss design rather than the original Sonnar. It is very sharp for a Nikon lens and works well for close work with the proper close up lenses, ie 2 element ones. Not run of the mill cheapies. Works fine for my flowers and such.

 

If I did forsenic or other scientific work, I would go for the 105 2.8 AF D.

[Ed_Ingold]

If you want an inexpensive way to start out in macrophotography, the 55/2.8 AIS Micro can be had for about $250. This lens has a tendency to get oil on the diaphram blades, requiring a CLA. The latest grease used by Nikon seems to eliminate the migration problem.

 

The longer the lens, the better for micros (in nature anyway). The longer working distance makes it easier to shoot living subjects without spooking them and the narrow field of view makes background control easier. I wouldn't recommend a 50mm micro lens except for document copying or as a starter lens. The AF 200/4 micro is arguably the best micro lens on the market, but is costly. A 105 is more reasonably priced and represents a good overall compromise.

 

I have been experimenting with a 300/4 AFS lens for closeups. It is very sharp and can be used with extension tubes. However it focuses to 3.5 meters with a reproduction ratio of 1:4, which is more than sufficient for flowers and larger objects. I have attached an image taken with a 300/4 at a distance of nearly 8 feet with a D2x. The image is not cropped.<div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

My apologies. The image is actually cropped to an 8x10 aspect ratio, keeping the full width.

[alvin_lim5]

Been using the 105mm non VR version and very much love it. For me, the VR function is not that essential because when I shoot macro, I would usually use a tripod. I guess if you do not need the VR function, it may be better to get a good used copy of the non VR version.

[sim_m]

The only doubt I have between the VR and non VR version is that once I read a review were the reviewer preffered the

non VR as he claimed that it was better.

[bjørn rørslett]

Opinions are divided on the 105 VR Micro-Nikkor. I tried two copies neither of which could deliver the quality I'd expect from a Micro-Nikkor. Contrary to what some claim, performance wide open should also be considered (some applications need the lens to be set wide open). I ended up with the Voigtländer 125 mm f/2.5 APO Lanthar instead, a much better lens than the 105 VR. It has the same excellent bokeh as the 105 VR, too.

 

I also own the older 105/2.8 AF and AIS Micro-Nikkors that are good performers, the AIS in particular is outstanding for distant subjects (untypical for Micro-Nikkors). Don't overlook the older 105/4 Micro-Nikkor that may be even better than the f/2.8 versions (but not at distance). And just to complete the picture, the UV-Nikkor 105/4.5 is also a Micro and is sharper than any of the 105 models (that quality doesn't come cheap, though).

[malcolm_farrow]

The used options offer a significant cost saving, but the current lens is a more versatile design as the VR is effective up to about 1:3 or so, which opens up a lot of opportunities for more casual walk around type work. Out of focus areas are more pleasing than other lenses in this focal length that I've tried (105 2.8 non-VR Nikon and Sigma) and it also makes a decent portrait lens on an FX body, adding to its attractiveness.

 

That said, on a tripod VR offers no advantage, so some consideration of the type of subjects you wish to shoot might help you decide. As to performance, the current Nikon is VERY sharp, micro contrast is excellent, and aberrations well enough controlled to be unnoticeable in normal use. I've never been anything other than extremely happy with its performance, although I've occasionally wished for a slightly longer focal length, but that's hardly a criticism of the 105 VR. In its normal working range, i.e. f8-16 I would be very surprised if it were less sharp than other similar lenses and, by the time you reach f16, diffraction is the limiting factor anyway. Centre sharpeness wide open is surprisingly good, making it suitable for portraiture, and contrast is also excellent at this aperture. Some of the other lenses previously mentioned may be better, but as I rarely use such settings, I didn't take too much notice when I owned them.

 

In summary, if you can afford it, the latest lens is the best option IMO. There are a lot of shots taken using the 105VR on my website, and I'd be happy to send you a couple of full resolution samples if you'd like to see them.

[leif_goodwin8]

You don't say what the intended use is. The 85mm micro has superb optics, and the latest one has an electronic aperture which will work with your D300. However, the front element is rather inset, which reduces working distance, making it less suitable for insects. And it is rather expensive. The older non electronic aperture version is available cheaper and is a beauty but it is slow to use. The 105mm F2.8 AFD has excellent optics, and is well suited for insects, flowers, fungi etc. I have owned 2 and I have few complaints. It is not quite as sharp and contrasty at F16 as other micro lenses, specifically the 60mm F2.8 AFD and 85mm F2.8 TS micro. Oh and the aperture ring on my sample really is appalling: it is very hard to set, quite shocking for Nikon gear. One point to note about the new VR 105mm micro is that it does not have an aperture ring. That means you cannot set the actual aperture, only the effective one via the camera. That to me is a deal breaker and the reason I bought the older lens. When shooting insects I want to know the actual aperture in use. Also the new lens will not work with Nikon extension tubes. You will need to buy third party ones with contacts.

 

Doesn't the 105mm F4 lens only go to 1:2 unaided?

[ilkka_nissila]

This is a complex topic for which there are no clear "best" answers. I've recently "upgraded" both my 60mm and 105mm

AF-D Micro-Nikkors to their AF-G versions. Was it worthwhile? Yes, I think so. First, AF-S makes the new lenses more

fun to use for general photography, and the AF-S lenses are far easier to focus manually than the AF-D versions for

general purpose as well as macro work, though I nowadays often use a focusing rail for close-ups instead of relying on the ring. The

image quality of the old

60mm was poor at infinity at wide apertures, the new one seems to be good at all distances.

<p>

I haven't rigorously tested the infinity performance of the Micro-Nikkors. I use them for architectural shots from time to

time and am satisfied with the long distance results from all of them, as long as I stop them down to f/8 or f/11, which is how I would

use a lens for landscapes and architecture. However, there are interesting things to observe at near distances. First, the new lenses

have far less

CA than the old ones. The 105 VR is more contrasty than the AF-D. Fine detail? Well, when I've made test shots of

black text on white paper, or of coins, at f/8 and f/11, the 105 VR has slightly better definition of detail than the 60mm

AF-G. The magnifications have ranged from 1:1.6 to 1:4 in these tests, using both the D200 and D3 cameras. The images from the older

60mm AF-D at these magnifications had a lot of CA but comparable sharpness to the 105 VR. In outdoor field

conditionsthe difference is so subtle that it's difficult to judge. A slight adjustment in post-processing seems to

make the lenses equal to practical purposes at these apertures and magnifications. I need to do more field testing but initially when it

comes to fine detail, it is difficult to tell them apart.

<p>

In the following tests, only FX cameras were used. At intermediate distances (1-2m) I have tested the 105 VR, the 105 AF-D Micro, and

the 100mm ZF against the 105 DC. The 105 VR and the 100mm ZF have higher contrast than the 105 DC or the 105 AF-D Micro. For

fine detail, the DC was far superior to the AF-D Micro at wide apertures, whereas the 105 VR matched the detail from the 105 DC. The

105 VR has a bit of vignetting wide open which makes its f/2.8 more like using f/4 in the 105 DC in terms of how much light enters the

sensor near the edges (FX). The 105mm AF-D Micro was inferior to the 105 DC at all apertures, at wide apertures the difference was

staggering. The 100mm Zeiss was equal to the 105 DC at f/2.8 to f/11, but at f/2 the 100 ZF was clearly sharper than the

105 DC.

<p>

As Björn pointed out that performance at f/2.8 can be important, I have to say that I don't normally shoot close-ups at

those settings - but for the sake of academic curiosity, I did include wide apertures in subsequent testing. I found that at mid

magnifications (1:2, 1:4) the Nikkor rendered the detail slightly better when stopped down to f/11 or f/8 (I allowed for the fact that in the

Nikkor, you control the effective aperture whereas in the Zeiss you access only the physical one, so I looked at slightly larger apertures

of the Zeiss at close-up distances), whereas the Zeiss gave a more detailed image at f/4 and f/2.8. When I put the Zeiss on some

extension tubes to get to 1:1.3, and compared again against the 105 VR, the Zeiss was superior at all apertures, rendering fine detail

more crisply in the center of the image, and at the edges, the Zeiss was far superior; the edges in the images rendered by the Nikkor

seemed to fall apart especially towards the wide apertures whereas with the Zeiss they held together nicely at this magnifcation.

<p>

My conclusions are that in lab-like conditions, the 105 VR is the best of the four autofocus Micro-Nikkors I have tested in the

range tested (1:1.6 to 1:4), at the apertures I am most likely to use for close-ups: f/8 and f/11. The new Micros have

less CA but at those apertures, sharpness differences were subtle. At infinity all the Micros work well at f/8

or f/11. At wide apertures and normal non-macro distances the new AF-G

Micros (both 60 and the 105) seem to be much better than the AF-D Micros. I did not see any area where the new micros have

significant problems except for the fact that they don't work on Nikon's extension tubes or bellows. The 100mm Zeiss seemed to excel

at wide apertures and high magnifications. At mid magnifications and mid apertures it didn't seem to be any better than the 105

VR (on FX; DX may show differences at other apertures too). For portraits, I would not use any of the Micro-Nikkors or the Zeiss macro,

unless I am trying to make someone look really old and

wrinkly, though the 105 VR seems to be ok with a softer look if you need to get closer than a more specialized portrait lens would

allow.

<p>

<i>Doesn't the 105mm F4 lens only go to 1:2 unaided?</i>

<p>

Yes, but as it turns out, that may be an asset rather than a liability. It seems that using extension tubes on a lens that

goes to 1:2 is often better than using a lens that goes to 1:1 without tubes. I don't know why, perhaps too many

compromises are needed to make a lens that does the full range from 1:1 to infinity.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>In outdoor field conditionsthe difference is so subtle that it's difficult to judge. A slight adjustment in post-processing

seems to make the lenses equal to practical purposes at these apertures and magnifications. I need to do more field

testing but initially when it comes to fine detail, it is difficult to tell them apart.</i>

<p>

This paragraph was intended to refer to the new 105 and 60mm AF-G Micros, not the older ones.

[studor13]

"For portraits, I would not use any of the Micro-Nikkors or the Zeiss macro, unless I am trying to make someone

look really old and wrinkly"

 

Ilkka, please.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>at mid magnifications (1:2, 1:4) the Nikkor rendered the detail slightly better when stopped down to f/11 or f/8</i>

<p>

And this comparison refers to the 105 VR Nikkor against the Zeiss. I really need to do more careful proof-reading before

posting.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>Ilkka, please.</i>

<p>

What is it?

<p>

Some of the sharpest lenses can be really unflattering when applied to portraits in certain kinds of light. Of course you can

use a softening filter or do it in post-processing but I think it's easier to use a lens that renders a face nicely in the first

place. Anyway, this is off-topic but the reason I added that comment is that many people nowadays choose a Micro-Nikkor

and use it for portraits because the AF-S and VR temptations, whereas the optics are not ideal for this kind of work. Of course, if you want

a detail close-up, you can do it with a macro lens. To me a portrait is something that shows more than a detail.

[studor13]

Ilkka, have you seen the MTF figures on the AFD 50mm f/1.8 at around f/3.2 compared with the 60mm Micro?

 

I shoot a lot of my portraits with the 50mm and I can assure you that there is no such thing as too sharp a lens.

 

As you say it depends a lot on the light, but that's what it's all about isn't it?

 

Anyways, Simon, I can't help with you with which of the 105mm is the best for macros, but I really like the 55mm

f/3.5 Micro Auto-PC.

 

However, I do have the 105mm f/2.5 AIS and as everyone will tell you it's a great lens - for portraits!

[ilkka_nissila]

I haven't looked at MTF graphs for that aperture. I think the 50mm f/1.8 is a very nice lens for portraits, I got good

results with it and the D200. If you don't believe me, try the 60mm AF-D or the 100mm Zeiss. They render detail with

very high contrast and whatever pores there may be in the skin, they get dug out and amplified by the lens. I was

shocked when I tried the 100mm on a friend of mine at the office (in frontal window light); stuff that I didn't know were

there (and he won't want to know) popped up. Of course if you use studio

lights with soft boxes or umbrellas, you can minimize this but I often shoot my portraits in available light. To some

extent this is a matter of style, of course; but in my original account above, I said that *I* wouldn't want to use one of

these

macros for portraits. This assumes that you have a choice; but given the low cost of the 50 and the

moderate cost of the 85/1.8, it's a question of priorities. In some situations I may be walking around with a macro

lens and take a street photo with it, but they usually aren't taken all that close so as to look unattractive. I have one

travel photography book which is largely portraits taken with the 60mm AF and ... well, the reason for that choice by

the author of the book is to show details of decorations and dresses and to bring them out sharply, but that's not the

way I like to do photos of people. It depends on whether the focus is on the person or the garment / decorations.

 

Incidentally, my favorite portrait lens is the 17-55mm DX, though I no longer own it.

 

Anyway, the bottom line is that the choice of portrait lens, if anything, is highly subjective.

[studor13]

As I don't have the 60mm Micro I can only take your word for it.

 

From the images I've seen posted on Pnet, I don't believe it is any sharper than the 50mm f/1.8 @f2.8. However,

there are two advantages in this lens:

 

1. It has 9 rounded blades

 

The pleasant bokeh from it makes it a very useful portrait lens.

 

2. It is Micro lens

 

As you know, Dr Rorslett gives it a 5. (Infinity and close-ups are said to be great)

 

You have the best of both worlds.

[sim_m]

Wow Ilkka. a wealth of information. <P>M. Farrow excellent shot from your website.</P><P> I was asked what I need the 105's for, Macro. As for portraits I would prefare to use the 17-55mm f2.8.<P> Andy I did use the 55mm f3.5 reversed in the past and yes it was excellent.</P>

[ilkka_nissila]

To clarify: <p>

<i>1. It has 9 rounded blades</i>

<p>

The 60mm AF-G has 9 rounded blades, the 60mm AF-D has 7 straight ones (I wrote about the latter above). Yes, the new 60 has very

nice

bokeh and either of the AF-G versions (60 and 105) would be better than the old ones for portraits. The old AF-D Micros are more

difficult

to focus at portrait distances; the new ones don't have this problem but I just prefer different lenses for these type of shots (e.g. the

85mm,

one of the regular 105's or the 17-55 DX at 55mm). No crime is made by shooting a head shot with a macro lens as long as you get what

you want. ;-)

<p>

<i>As you know, Dr Rorslett gives it a 5.</i>

<p>

I don't disagree with Bjorn here; the new 60mm is a nice lens with a very balanced performance - it seems to find its way to my bag very

often. In my testing I have found, however, that the 105 VR (which Bjorn rates 4) is slightly sharper for close-ups (at apertures and

magnifications described earlier in this thread). Incidentally, photozone.de tests show the same; the 105 has higher MTF values. The

difference may be that Bjorn's experience is real world based while my test (and the photozone test) are made in controlled conditions so

they reflect different subjects (in my case, 10 Euro cent coins and black text on white paper). I would, as a rule, put more weight on

Bjorn's

real world experience. I just wonder why the lab tests apparently disagree here; that's one reason why I've been doing the tests to find

conditions in which to use each lens.

<p>

Anyway, my comments are intended to be helpful for people considering these lenses and I try to be as accurate as I can, but I can't

account for all possible conditions and personal preferences. There is always some subjectivity with regards to lens and technique

choice.

<p>

I'll try to shoot some portraits with the new 60 to see what happens. They'll be window light since I'm currently doing that kind of a

project ;-)

<p>

Dr. Nissilä

[leif_goodwin8]

FWIW I have never seen CA with either the 60mm F2.8 AF (non-D) or the 105mm F2.8 AFD (2 samples). I have though noticed that the 105mm has a noticeably cooler rendition to the other Nikon lenses that I own. I have also owned the Tamron 90mm F2.8 Di Macro but did not like it.

 

Is it compulsory to declare oneself a Dr.? (Three years of low paid work as an assistant to a tenured university employee. Mmm. :) )

[bjørn rørslett]

I hold a Ph.D. but normally won't desclare myself a Dr. :)