Macro lens choice, etc. inc. Katz Eye

[chris_werner]

<p>I'm stuck debating between getting (1) the 105mm f2.8 G VR lens vs. (2) a 105mm f4 AIS plus a Katz Eye focusing screen, to be used on a Nikon D300. Or maybe a shorter focal length - I'm sort of all spun around on this and struggling to get some focus. Option 2 is actually less money, but let's call it equal for arguments sake. I know a lot of this gets down to personal preference, particularly as regards autofocusing, but I'm curious as how you might see one setup versus the other affecting the ease of macro use. Here's how I think I see the choices, and I would most appreciate any addenda, corrections, or amplifications.</p>

<p>Option 1 frees me of the tripod a bit - the one I'm about to drop a bundle on and train myself to use consistently ;-) - but, seriously, would address some situations where a tripod isn't viable. Newer optics - does that mean better in a perceptible way? Option 2 get me older but, as I understand it, very good optics and sets me up to use more AI/AIS lenses. I think I might be a bit retro - a Pentax LX with a digital back would probably be my ideal camera - and I might just end up going back to manual focus.</p>

<p>So, my questions are . . .<br>

(1) - Option 1 vs. 2 - pluses and minuses for macro use. I'm just starting macro, by the way, but I think I'll be leaning towards stuff that doesn't move very much, found objects and such.<br>

(2) - Is the working distance of those lenses sufficient to effectively us a ring flash and or off camera flashes?<br>

(3) - I've experimented with manual focus with the camera as is. I think I need the Katz Eye. I'm myopic - will it actually help?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Myopic does not matter providing you adjust the viewfinder diopter to fit your vision or buy an additional dioper. Get the focus indicator points sharp, then work on the image.</p>

<p>If you can`t see sharply, the Katz will not help. Further as you focus closer, the lens effective aperture gets smaller. At 1:1 or life size, the 4.0 lens may be smaller than 5.6. The prism focus wedges on the Katz are angled for 5.6 or faster and if you use a slower lens, one of the two will black out rendering it useless. For this reason I would recommend a 2.8. If you can use the stock screen, a f 4.0 is ok.</p>

<p>Sorry I can`t do more than guide you based on my experience. I manually focus with stock screens all the time without a problem, but I must admit the older slr screen which were not optimised for brightness were lots easier to focus. </p>

<p>If you can`t get, look for a plain ground glass screen rather than one with a split image and microprism surround. They work better with slow manual focus lenses, but split images are better for fast lenses. The down side is these are not easy interchanged anymore and a plain gg may drive you crazy in the long run. </p>

<p> </p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Myopic does not matter providing you adjust the viewfinder diopter to fit your vision or buy an additional dioper. Get the focus indicator points sharp, then work on the image.</p>

<p>If you can`t see sharply, the Katz will not help. Further as you focus closer, the lens effective aperture gets smaller. At 1:1 or life size, the 4.0 lens may be smaller than 5.6. The prism focus wedges on the Katz are angled for 5.6 or faster and if you use a slower lens, one of the two will black out rendering it useless. For this reason I would recommend a 2.8. If you can use the stock screen, a f 4.0 is ok.</p>

<p>Sorry I can`t do more than guide you based on my experience. I manually focus with stock screens all the time without a problem, but I must admit the older slr screen which were not optimised for brightness were lots easier to focus. </p>

<p>If you can`t get, look for a plain ground glass screen rather than one with a split image and microprism surround. They work better with slow manual focus lenses, but split images are better for fast lenses. The down side is these are not easy interchanged anymore and a plain gg may drive you crazy in the long run. </p>

<p> </p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>1) From my understanding the VR feature is not very useful at macro range. I can't tell you in real life experience until next week when I get mine.;-) I have the older 105 mm AF-D and just ordered the G. <br>

2) You can probably find a faster 105 mm macro than f4. The Tamron SP 90 mm f2.8 macro is suppose to be very good.<br>

3) Katz Eye focusing screen is really nice for every thing including macro. <br>

4) As Ronald mentioned myopic has nothing to do with focusing. You need to adjust the diopter on your view finder regardless. You wear corrective glasses normally I presume so if necessary you can wear your eye glasses to look through the view finder. That is however not necessary since you can adjust the diopter.<br>

5) A ring flash works with most macro lens if you want a flat no shadow image. Otherwise off camera flash will also work. <br>

6) With the D300 you can use a whole host of lenses except for the pre-Ai lenses.</p>

 

[jose_perez3]

<p>I have both the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR and the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D. I’ve used them mostly with the Nikon D80. I am now using them with the D700. I’ve never used the f4 AIS so I cannot say anything about that lens. I can tell you that with the D80 the vibration reduction (VR) won’t help much. In fact you will need to turn this feature off to use the lens on a tripod. You will need to use the lens in manual focus mode with a tripod and a remote release to obtain good close-up photo. To obtain the best photos I would suggest buying the Nikon R1C1 Macro flash system to go along with the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR lens. If I had it to do over again (buying the 105mm VR & 60mm) I probably would save up and buy the AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED lens instead. I like to photograph bugs and flowers. The bugs require a lens with a longer focusing distance. The Minimum Focus Distance for the 105mm VR is 1 foot. While the minimum focus distance for the 60mm is 8 inches. I want the 200mm because it has a min focus distance of 1.7ft. I would be less likely to frighten the bugs when photographing them from 1.7ft vs 1ft or 8 in.</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>I used to work for a guy who loved to talk about BFO's - Blinding Flashes of the Obvious. My BFO here was that I forgot to adjust the diopter on the camera. Now I seem to be able to focus pretty well. I can see clearly, just not beyond near distances. Feeling stupid . . . Doh!<br>

Hansen - I was focused on the F4 lens because I saw it referenced in threads here as being particularly good, and figuring that using wider apertures in macro wasn't going to happen anyway. And, KEH has a couple of nice samples for under $300. :-) I hadn't thought about the range being an issue with the effectiveness of the VR on the G, but thinking on it that makes a lot of sense. I'd love to hear what you think after getting it. But why did you order the G if you have the D?<br>

Jose - I've looked at the 200mm, but the price makes me wilt and it seems that for some applications (not bugs like you're talking about) the extra working distance actually turns into a disadvantage. I'm trying to get something versatile to start off with. But I'm curious - is the minimum focus a good proxy for the minimum working distance? I've been confused on this given the way magnification changes with the nodal point.<br>

So I guess maybe I'm down to G vs. AIS, since it seems I may not need the Katz Eye after all (particularly, as Ron points out, the apertures I'd be using wouldn't work well with it). Would a focusing rail be a worthy substitute?</p>

<p>Edit / P.S. - It's not that I'm looking to spend money, it's just that I've set a budget to spend post Xmas and am looking to make the most of it. So if a focusing rail would help things a lot, I would just divert some resources there if I went with the AIS lens.</p>

[hudspeth]

<p>I use my 80-400 with a 500D Canon close up lens and that gives me 2 feet plus auto focus. Combined with SB800 and the shots are great about 1 to 1 at 400mm.</p>

[jose_perez3]

<p>I understand the Minimum Focus Distance to be the closest you can get the lens to the object you are trying to photograph. For example if I wanted to try to fill the frame of my camera with a bee, the closest I can get with the 105mm VR is 1 foot (at 1ft a bee won’t fill the frame anyway). If I get any closer I won’t be able to focus in on the bee. If I am more than a 1 foot away than the bee is that much smaller in the frame. I totally forgot about using a focusing rail. In fact, I won a bid on ebay on a discontinued Minolta focusing rail over a year ago. It has been sitting in my closet since. I bought the rail after reading John Shaw’s “Closeups in Nature” book. John Shaw has it on page 36 of his book. I have the same rail. I did not use it much because setting up and trying to adjust the rails while taking insect photos is cumbersome. For still life or object photography am sure the rail would work great. It comes in handy when you have a shallow dept of field. It is very difficult to maintain a macro focus when using a shallow depth of field (even on a tripod). The focusing point keeps moving. I find the shallow depth of field ruins my bug and flower photos. That is why some type of flash (ring or R1C1) helps. The flash will allow you to set your F stop at f16 or f22 and get a decent exposure. I don’t have either the ring flash or the Nikon R1C1 yet but can tell you that Hansen is right about using an off camera flash. I have the SB800 and it will leave a shadow on the object you are photographing if you try to leave it on the camera shoe while using the 105mm VR. Plus I have read that the SB800 is too bright to use for macro photography. I don’t know if this is true but I have read it. Here’s a bee photo I took with the D80 and 105mm f2.8 VR set to F22 and 1/80 sec, focus manual and VR on hand held. The bee is in focus but the back ground has some streaks (I don’t know why).</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Neither autofocus nor VR is of much use near the macro limit IMO. Use a tripod, an L bracket, and possibly a focusing rail for this kind of work, if you can.</p>

<p>Actually I found the Katz Eye split image a bit of an obstruction for macro work; for this area I prefer the Nikon screen (although otherwise I used Katz Eye in my DX cameras).</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>A focus rail is nice if you want to adjust the pic to a certain magnification such as 1:2. In that case, the lens is set to that ratio and the camera is moved to achieve focus. Not a lot of use for this in field work.</p>

<p>If you make vertical format shots, that is another to twist and turn and put the camera further from the center of the tripod.<br>

You would probably need an L bracket to make it work.</p>

<p>My choice for macro all things considered is still my Leica bellows+ 8 mm tube to avoid interference, 65,90,125, 135,200, 280 lens heads all go on the bellows and I can adjust vertical and horizontal by rotating the camera only and the bellows has a built in focus rail. Then put the whole rig on a Gitzo Reporter with the long center column replaced with a short 6" one, splay the legs out45 or 90 degrees and I can put the whole thing anywhere I want. Since the lenses all have manual diaphragms, I can see debth of field and background rendition and focus at any aperture I please. This whole thing goes on a D40, D200,or D700. I use the Leica to Nikon adapter from Camera Quest to make the two systems connect. The system is totally out of date, but I already own it and I can do anything I want with it and the lenses are better than Nikons. I have a 65 2.8 Nikon micro for hand work. Maybe I`ll get a 105 2.8 VR for the D700 as it is handy for some things. </p>

<p>If you want to work on a tripod, a bellows is definately the way to go. If you want to do handheld work, a macro lens is better. Nikon made 105 and 135 mm bellows lenses. These have no built in focus mounts.</p>

<p>If you read my first post, the first thing I said was focus the eyepiece diopters.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Not a lot of use for this in field work.</em></p>

<p>I wonder why you think so? Autofocus macro lenses have relatively quick turn and at least with the AF-D 105mm Micro-Nikkor its very hard to nail focus precisely by turning the ring - whereas this is easy enough with a rail. The AF-S VR is a bit easier in this respect and of course, manual focus lenses are still better, but for me it's easier to work when I have the camera on a rail. Also it means I don't need to move the tripod legs when I want to adjust the camera position a little (I use a 2-axis system).</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>To lower the straight output power of the SB800 on the hotshoe simply tape a loose sheet of paper or better a piece of translucent white plastic (from e.g. a plastic can) on the reflector... as a big diffuser.</p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>Personally, some of my better macro shots were taken hand-held of moving things where a tripod was not feasible, or even allowed.<br>

So I'd take VR, not as a replacement for a tripod, but for when it's just not available.</p><div></div>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Performance-wise, there are some differences between the two lenses, but it's very hard to pick the better one. There's not a big difference in terms of max aperture in practice, the 105 G suffers from some vignetting at f2.8. The Zeiss 100/2 is more interesting if speed is important. The 105/4 has clearly better working distance, but needs an extension tube to go past 1:2 magnification. Not a big deal for me, 1:2 is a lot on DX.<br /> I use the 105/4 on a D300 and find that the working distance is sufficient for me. I don't need another screen -- live view is great for careful macro focusing.<br>

One more thing: the 105 G is somewhat more versatile for general use due to VR and AF-S. OTOH, the 105/4 has rock-solid build and is smaller and easier to handle.</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>Jose and Bill - Nice shots! Ron - I actually went and fixed my diopter because of your comment - thanks for the reminder.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for the feedback. My brain is overflowing between this and reading the archives for a good part of the day. I'm going to process a bit more and come back for some more help I imagine. Thanks again!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I bought the 105 VR as I wanted a short tele with AF-S, and it does work well in general photography applications. However, I haven't managed to get crisp results with it in close-up applications in field conditions (tripod use). It does well enough in lab tests though. Partly due to this I acquired the 100mm ZF which I initially had thought was too expensive. It turned out the 100mm ZF is far better than any Micro-Nikkor I've used in terms of image quality in field macro work. It gives extra working distance (the focal length increases to 110mm at 1:2 magnification, whereas the FL of the AF-S VR Micro <em>decreases</em> as you focus close). I've just finished printing a set of A3 prints for a little exhibition and the 100mm ZF shots really stand out. I've never before used any lens which gives such a consistent rendering of detail, center to corner, f/2 to f/8, 1:2 to infinity. Also, the sharpness at the maximum aperture makes focusing in low light very easy. True, you need extension tubes or bellows to get beyond 1:2, but the quality using them is excellent.<br>

<br /> The only drawbacks are that 1) it's expensive, 2) it's makes my Nikkors look bad. For more info, see e.g. http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html and his comments on the D3X and 100ZF is anyone has doubts about this lens.</p>