New micro lenses better than old?

[Ian Rance]

<p>Are the new Nikon micro lenses (like the 60mm AF-S) notably better than the older manual focus versions (like the 55mm P.C) in terms of actual results? I am thinking along the lines of colour and sharpness here - not AF speed obviously.</p>

<p>The reason I ask is that I have recently purchaced a 55mm f/3.5 P.C lens and have been working hard over the last week or so to get better with my close-up work. I know that the lens is often better than the photographer, but this lens was for sale for over a year at a price of 25 pounds, and the fact that the new AF-S lenses have been flying off the shelves again and again makes me wonder if they are loads better? I am enjoying macro work more than I thought and I want to get good results.</p>

<p>So, are the new lenses worth purchacing as an upgrade, or are they very much the same when all is said and done?</p>

<p>I attach a photo taken with my new rather old lens taken this week.</p>

<p>Thanks, Ian</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since Ian mainly shoots film SLRs, I should point out that the new 60mm AF-S macro is a G lens. For all practical purposes it does not work on Nikon manual-focus film SLRs.</p>

[peter]

<p>I own the 55mm f2.8 AF Micro lens that was the first model / style of AF lens. Reviews I have read seem to indicate pretty clearly that this lens is better in normal use then the newer 60mm f2.8 micro AF. But the latter seems slightly sharper when used as a micro lens. It also is nicely contrasty with good color rendition. So its not clear to me that newer = better necessarily.</p>

[tony_defilippo1]

<p>I have to agree with Peter, I've also got the 55mm/2.8 Micro and have been very happy with IQ up close and at a distance. I do admit that the slow/inaccurate AF, especially close up is more annoying than I expected it to be.<br>

Another unsolicited observation is that I don't really like the 55mm focal length on DX (D80). As tempted as I am by the ~$100 50mm/1.8 I just don't think I'd find it staying on the camera much. (for the kind of photography I do)</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>I have never been happy with the Nikkor 60 mm macro. I had three copies and none gave me the "wow" factor. I had a 55 mm f3.5 macro when I was shooting film and it was always my favorite lens no matter what I shooting. As long as I needed a 55 mm focal length I reached for the 55 f3.5. I just recently bought a used 55 mm f2.8 purely to fit on my Panasonic G1 body as a macro lens in the 110 mm range. It was so spectacular that I took the lens off the G1 and use it on my Nikon bodies instead every chance I get. <br>

So in my opinion the newer lens does not translate into a better lens.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Interesting Hansen - I had purchased the 55/2.8 AIS a while back - and never liked it - so eventually I sold it again. I am very happy with my 70-180/4.5-5.6 Micro Nikkor though - to which I added the Sigma 150/2.8 recently for the cases were I needed more working distance. None of the newer Nikon micro/macro lens offerings tempt me to part with my 70-180 - not the 60/2.8 AF-S and not the 105/2.8 AF-S VR.</p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>I have had quite a number of Nikon Micro lenses. I personally think that the f/4.0 105 mm (Ai, AiS) is the best of the bunch ever.<br>

Christoph</p>

[photo5]

<p>If you don't have *this* particular micro lens, you aren't as good as those who do have *this* particular one.<br>

Sheesh people. As far as I am concerned, ALL of the Nikon Micro-Nikkor lenses are outstanding. They are among some of the finest optics ever made. You're splitting hairs if you think one particular one is better than the other. Enjoy whichever one you have and ignore all of those who say *this* one is better than *that* one.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Dieter, David. Besides the Nikkor 60 mm AF-S f2.8G macro and the 55 mm F2.8 AIS I was talking about, I also have a small collection of other macro lenses.<br>

I can only speak from my experience with what I actually used. Otherwise it will not be fair for me to speculate. I am neither offering a scientific comparison of the lenses I am referring nor am I trying to promote or talk bad about any specific lens.<br>

However from the three AF 60 mm macro lenses I tried from Nikkor, I never liked any of them. The images always come out less sharped and less contrast then all others.<br>

I do have and use the Sigma 150 mm f2.8, Tamron 90mm sp f2.8 AF macro, Tamron 90mm sp f2.5 manual focus macro, Nikkor 105 mm f2.5 AIS macro, Nikkor 105 mm f2.8 AF-D macro, Nikkor 105 f2.8G AF-S macro and the Leica 60 mm R f2.8 Elmarit macro not to count the Pentax and Olympus lenses. I also have a variety of "close focus" or "macro" zooms but those will not reach 1:1 so I am not counting them. </p>

<p> </p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Thank you for the comments.</p>

<p>From what you all say, it seems that the new 60mm lenses are not something I should worry about getting. I quite like my 55mm lens, and instead of worrying about 'upgrading' it, I will just carry on working hard with what I have.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>More recent micro lenses have some advantages:</p>

<p>1) AFS: Faster AF. Not that that matters for most macro shots.<br>

2) 1:1 unaided: Some of the earlier lenses went to 1:2 unaided and needed an extension tube to go to 1:1.<br>

3) Internal focusing: focus is achieved by moving elements, hence the length does not change. This has the benefit that dust is not sucked into the lens.<br>

4) Less light loss at 1:1. Some of the more recent IF designs lose ~1 stop at 1:1, compared to older designs which lost 3 or more stops. So you can use shorter shutter speeds at a given aperture.<br>

5) The most recent designs have better bokeh. Some of the older lenses had rather angular and harsh out of focus highlights.</p>

<p>But there are advantages to older lenses:</p>

<p>1) The focal length might not change with focus, making it easier to achieve a given reproduction ratio, and apparently easier to do stacking.<br>

2) The aperture ring allows control of the real aperture (rather than the effective aperture via the camera command dial).<br>

3) Can be used on all bodies.</p>

<p>But you need to check reviews on a lens by lens basis.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>"Some of the more recent IF designs lose ~1 stop at 1:1, compared to older designs which lost 3 or more stops."</p>

<p>You don't lose 3 or more stop unless you go way beyond 1:1. The effective aperture decrease by 2 stops from infinity to 1:1 magnification. Lens like the new 60mm AF-S micro nikkor, has internal focus that reduces its focal length at higher magnification. As a result, the effective aperture also decrease less. This is also calculated by the bodies automatically as you focus closer. On mine, it is set to 1/2 stop increment which shown the decrease of 1.5 stops for the 60mm AF-S at 1:1. So it is a 1/2 stop improvement over the non IF 55mm micro. The flip side of this focal length reduction thing is the lost of working distant. Compared to the old 55mm f3.5, at 1:1, the AF-S 60 also has little bid less working distant. No free lunch in optical phyisic.</p>

<p>BTW: I have a couple of 55/3.5 (Compensated non-AI and non-compensated AI). The new AF-S to me has better optical characteristics (non-macro sharpness, color, flare resistance and contrast). The down side is while the old 55 can be reversed to extends its magnification, the new 60 AF-S is a pain to use in reverse and also does not perform as well in reverse too.</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>"You don't lose 3 or more stop unless you go way beyond 1:1."</p>

<p>The 200mm F4 AIS micro lens loses 3 stops at 1:1 according to the Nikon user manual. It is an internal focusing lens, and at closest focus unaided (1:2) it loses almost 2 stops. The more recent 200mm F4 AFD micro lens loses about 1 stop at 1:1. Internal focusing alone does not tell you much about the light loss.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Not really that much better. What the new lenses do better is that they are more optimized for all distances (and they have AF and chips and all that). But they also rely on changing the focal length while focusing, which some people (e.g. me, Bjørn) find annoying.<br>

Personally I think that the newer macro lenses are sellouts. the 105 VR is a glorified all-purpose lens that's thick as anything and despite all its fancy features doesn't have as smooth manual focusing as a 105/4. The 60/2.8 is a largish lens to be that slow. Both can produce excellent images, I just don't like their design parameters.<br>

If you want to go up a notch, buy a Zeiss macro. Manual everything, smooth as butter focusing and f2 apertures with excellent optical quality. Still the old Nikkors are very good lenses and do offer the best value, but you asked...<br>

Another very interesting option are the PC lenses, which offer excellent quality up to 1:2 and movements.</p>

[walterh]

<p>The new 60mm AFS micro Nikkor has nice bokeh :-) A good reason to get this lens for general shooting.</p>

<p>I want to see any current Nikkor macro lens that outresolves the 55mm f3.5 (any version). Resolution can be measured. Sharpness is an illusion and as such hard to quantify and easy to add in PP. Detail based on resolution cannot be added in PP.</p>

<p>Another point: If one wants to compare macro lenses one needs to consider the attempted f-stop used for imaging. Many shoot at small apertures set at 11 to 22 (efficient values are then even higher). At these apertures that can provide large DOF almost all macro lenses are the same^^ since diffraction limited.</p>

<p>"I am thinking along the lines of colour...."In what respect? CA? Color cast as compared to other Nikon lenses? This can be easily corrected in PP.</p>

<p>BTW: I would first decide on the application, this gives you the required focal length and then start from there. Available light sources (especially if shooting near 1:1) are also important factors in chosing the focal length.</p>

<p>Regarding the 70-180mm Nikkor zoom mentioned above. Yes definitively a great and convenient lens. The large zoom range is a tremendous help in composing and in quick action. Its resolution is not in the same league as the best primes like the old 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor. Still I use it often when I need large DOF.</p>

<p> </p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>"Another point: If one wants to compare macro lenses one needs to consider the attempted f-stop used for imaging. Many shoot at small apertures set at 11 to 22 (efficient values are then even higher). At these apertures that can provide large DOF almost all macro lenses are the same^^ since diffraction limited."</p>

<p>That is widely believed, but in my experience there can be quite a bit of variation. My 105mm F2.8 AFD micro is the worst of the lenses I own as it loses significant resolution and contrast on going from F11 to F16, and I prefer to avoid F16. My 60mm F2.8 AFD, 85mm F2.8 PCD and 200mm F4 AFD micro lenses are much better in that respect, and results at F16 are rather good. The 85mm F2.8 PC micro lens is the best of the lot. Even at F22 it performs well. (These are real apertures, set on the aperture ring.) Quite why such variation exists, I have no idea. Perhaps the shape of the aperture blades pays an important role. I don't think the traditional belief that IQ at F16 and beyond is purely diffraction limited is valid.</p>

<p>Incidentally I use the lenses on a 10 MP APS-C sensor, and a 12 MP one would push the lenses further.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Leif:<br />I don't have a 200mm f4 AIS micro nikkor so I can't be sure. This lens go to 1:2 only and Nikon suggested a use of a 2X teleconverter to reach 1:1. If you do this, you lose 1 stop for 1:2 and 2 additional stops for the 2X converter = -3 stops. That extra stop of light lost is due to the teleconverter. Because the set up with the 2XTC is in effect a 400mm f8 lens set-up (f11 at 1:1).</p>

[walterh]

<p>Leif it is not trivial to know the effective aperture of these lenses since they are of different optical designs. The other thing is that unless one actually measures the resolution it is almost impossible to draw conclusions about resolution from casual shots e.g. shooting insects in the field.</p>

<p>I cannot say for my currently used sensor (D700 D3) but tested my 55mm f3.5 on the D200. IQ degraded already severely at a set aperture of f11 at 1:1 ratio. On a FF sensor that could be near f 16 resulting in an effective aperture of f22-32. </p>

<p>I am not saying that using f16 in the field will not give "great" images. I use small apertures all the time to get the required DOF. Nevertheless the limitation is there. If you need best resolution and large DOF you need to find other ways to solve the problem like focus stacking. All I am saying is that my own experience tells me that knowing what you are doing in macro photography is more important than having the latest and most expensive "sharp" lens.</p>

 

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>Walter: FWIW I check resolution using a flat test subject and tripod etc. Some micro lenses really can perform well at F16. But you are right, the skill of the user is the most important element.</p>