NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: MEPER on June 08, 2024, 09:07:12
-
I have not yet upgraded to the Z-version so still use the old AFS version. It is known to have a bit of CA when used for macro work or maybe in generel. When used for portraits I have been quite pleased with the results so maybe I have just not observed the CA.
I used it recently for at quick handheld macro shot of a detail on an old drawing instrument.
First the AF really confused me so I switched that off. Then the constant active noisy VR also confused me so switched that off also. Then I could concentrate on the image.
I wonder if it is possible to program the body so VR is only active when release button is pressed half way?
On newer lenses the VR is very silent but on this old lens I have a feeling that it drains the battery rather quickly and I don't like the constant noise.
But with VR off I also have a "feeling" that CA maybe will be a bit reduced compared to VR on. Could there be some technical explanation behind this?
If VR is on then a lens element or group is moving around so it will be a little bit decentered?
I have not made any experiments at all so just a thought.
The attached image was shot with both AF / VR off and I had expected some CA in the highlights but image seems to be quite ok for a quick handheld shot.
-
First of all, are these jpgs generated in camera? If that be the case, CA probably has been removed by software. Secondly, if NEFs are processed by Nikon software, are you sure CA wasn't removed there?
Thirdly, the [spectral] quality of the light also will influence how dominantly CA is manifested.
I don't use Nikon software on a regular basis and was so frustrated with the CA of my AFS 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor that I sold it off after three months and replaced it with the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5. No AF, but far superior in terms of colour handling.
The 'Z' 105mm f/2.8 MC Nikkor also is a much better performer than the older AFS 105 in terms of having low or negligible CA.
-
It is NEF processed in NX Studio. It seems Lateral CA correction is on (default setting). Snip attached.
But I tried both on/off with no visible change in image. Also attached one of the images with CA adjust off. Still "clean" regarding CA?
Then I can ask a question about NX-Studio. Something I have never found out.
The first snip where CA correction is on.......why is check-mark in right corner not "marked"? .....is this because it was off all the time?
Then when I switched off the CA check mark then the check mark in right corner switched on (this ship is also attached).
I think this is generel very confusing in NX Studio.
My own conclusion is that the software has worked in the first cast with CA-correct on even that the check mark in right corner is not checked and that it is an error in the software. But also strange that if it is an error that it has not been corrected.
The logical meaning would be that the check-mark in the right corner was there to enable / disable all the features checked-on inside this "frame".
My sample of AFS 105/2.8 sample is an older "Made in Japan" version.
Regarding VR on/off it seems that on a Z-body VR is active all the time and not just when shutter is pressed half way.
Image attached is with CA-off.....
-
Hi Meper
I remember reading Birna's review of that version of the 105 macros at the time and feeling depressed
(I'd just ordered the lens...)
I had the advantage of never owning any of the previous nikon macros, so never knew what I was missing.
I loved being able to take reasonable macros and the CA only became an issue under certain conditions.
I also found I liked the results of using the 105VR in non-macro mode.
Here, with some CA
(https://pbase.com/celidh/image/64234567.jpg)
Here, using it with a TC1.4 for BIF, the results were better than I dared expect
(https://pbase.com/celidh/image/149370394.jpg)
The shots above were all shot with F mount bodies (D50 I think and D300 the second)
I take it you're using a Z body & FTZ?
I also struggle with NX studio.
I could just about manage with Capture NX, but less so now
-
I bought the 105mm AF-S 2.8 VR and returned it more or less immediately, I found it had way too much CA, blooming, purple fringing for my usage. I also took the APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 in after borrowing Birnas lens, and adapted it to use on Nikon F with a new mount and dedicated CPU. I continued to use also the Micro Nikkor 105mm f/4 Ais for simplicity and IR performance ;)
Now all is replaced with Micro Nikkor MC 105mm f/2.8 S - Far superior in all aspects!
VR can create double lines in the oof areas,,, so in principle it can mess with CA but not in a helpful way I guess,,,
-
I think I will challenge the lens to get the best out of it. Then we will see if I can live without the Z-version. Nikon has made quite many of these. Most "Made in China" it seems. The 2nd hand value as a private sale is not that high anyway. The "Made in Japan" version is probably same 2nd hand price.
Regarding VR I was wondering if the VR lens group was out of optical axis when image was shot. It was my assumption and my reason to propose that maybe CA could be affected by this. Normally we like lens elements to be perfectly aligned?
I found a bit of technical VR information here:
https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/na/NSG_article?articleNo=000050844&configured=1&lang=en_SG (https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/na/NSG_article?articleNo=000050844&configured=1&lang=en_SG)
It seems that just before exposure the VR lens group resets to have as little off-axis error as possible and to have room for maximum VR adjustment during the exposure. So how much off-axis there is during exposure depends on how much camera shake there is.
This may also explain why the image in the viewfinder jumps around just after the exposure.
When we see cross section schematics of lenses the VR lens group is not "marked"?
-
This site has some break down on optical design for many lenses, here link to 105mm AF-S 2.8 VR
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US007218457_Example03P.txt,figureOpacity=0.27,AxisO,MarginalO,OffAxis,Pupils,AxisZ,AxisR
And here, not sure what lens this is,,,
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Nikon/US005751485/Example09.txt,figureOpacity=0,MarginalO,OffAxis,Pupils,AxisZ,AxisR,AxisO
-
Thank you!
The two links are identical?
-
I have changed the first link now :)
Basically you choose from the drop down list of lenses, however if you want to link it's best to use the link button,,,
-
When SIGMA released the latest 105mm macro lens (105mm f2.8 DG DN Macro for mirrorless cameras), Mr. Yamaki, CEO of SIGMA, explained that they employed the optical design that is slower to focus but shows less LoCA. He compared its optical design with that of 105mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM (for DSLR) and esplained that the optical design of the latter one was commonly employed for the micro/macro lenses:
https://platinumaps.jp/d/newotani-tokyo?area=1&floor=2F-G6F&gm=99
(around 33:28. The upper cross sections are focused at infinity, and the lower ones, at the minimal focusing distances)
AF-S VR 105/2.8 and AF-S 60/2.8 seem to share the same optcal design method, which should be why they suffer from LoCA. It's the inherent problem of the optical design of this type.
-
Interesting Akira.
In the early 2000's Sigma started to get a reputation for the quality of their 150mm Macro.
I came very close to getting one.
Once I'd moved to Nikon bodies, I decided to stick with their lenses and unfortunately bought the 105mm model Meper has been talking about :(
The Sigma 150mm would have been a good choice for me as even 105mm is barely enough working distance for some of the living subjects I was interested in. It's performance as a 150mm wasn't too bad, so it would have been a versatile tool. I guess there will be a few F mount copies going cheap now, as people move to the Z mount.
When SIGMA released the latest 105mm macro lens (105mm f2.8 DG DN Macro for mirrorless cameras), Mr. Yamaki, CEO of SIGMA, explained that they employed the optical design that is slower to focus but shows less LoCA.
In retrospect, you wonder why focus speed should be an overriding criteria for a macro lens.
I remember many people (Birna included?) asking why VR should be a requirement for a lens that would often be used on a tripod. Similarly AF was of some (but limited) benefit. As this period marked when accessible focus stacking tools became available, manual focus or moving the lens became the mode of operation for many.
-
Still many people believe AF is really necessary for a "macro" lens. Photomacrographers know this is not the case and there are good reasons for using manual focus. Sometimes the AF functionality impairs manual focusing and then is a drawback, but fortunately most modern 'macro' lenses do well in manual mode even if they are AF-capable.
I'm not convinced VR is a benefit or a drawback, however if the feature can be easily switched off that point is moot anyway.
A long focus throw and precise focusing are on the other hand highly recommended features.
The Z MC 105/2.8 Nikkor is really good albeit could be smaller in size, at least if your hands are small (like mine). Although manual focusing is "by wire", it is pretty smooth so I'm not bothered when I focus that lens manually. However, compared to the buttery smooth focusing of the APO-Lanthar 65mm f/2, it falls dramatically behind. I reckon virtually all other lenses would fare in similar fashion.
-
Interesting Akira.
In the early 2000's Sigma started to get a reputation for the quality of their 150mm Macro.
I came very close to getting one.
Once I'd moved to Nikon bodies, I decided to stick with their lenses and unfortunately bought the 105mm model Meper has been talking about :(
The Sigma 150mm would have been a good choice for me as even 105mm is barely enough working distance for some of the living subjects I was interested in. It's performance as a 150mm wasn't too bad, so it would have been a versatile tool. I guess there will be a few F mount copies going cheap now, as people move to the Z mount.
In retrospect, you wonder why focus speed should be an overriding criteria for a macro lens.
I remember many people (Birna included?) asking why VR should be a requirement for a lens that would often be used on a tripod. Similarly AF was of some (but limited) benefit. As this period marked when accessible focus stacking tools became available, manual focus or moving the lens became the mode of operation for many.
Armando used the very SIGMA 150mm f2.8 macro (the older version without "OS", the image stabilization), and his images with the lens showed virtually no LoCA, if I remember correctly.
I guess that the people required the faster focusing speed (and maybe VR also) to shoot the closeups of small and agile creatures like butterflies, bees or hummingbirds. Also, the manufacturer thought the potential buyers of 105mm micro/macro would use the lens more for general purposes for landscapes and portraits as well as closeups.
-
Ditto. I stopped using the 105/2.8 VR years ago and sold it.
LIke many, I find that the Z 105 MC Macro does a fine joh, IMO.
-
Here is an example of CA taken with AFS 105/2.8 at f/2.8 at closets distance with VR off and AF off.
CA correction and sharpening off in NX-Studio. 1st image shows "front" blur and 2nd image "far" blur. There are some visible CA.
For very flat objects lens can be ok. If you are just interested what is in focus. E.g. just to document a detail which has nothing to do with "art" photographing.
-
Here is the same test just with the old 55/3.5 Nikkor-P compensating type with M-adapter attached so it goes to 1:1 at closets distance.
Also some CA but less than the 105/2.8?
-
Same test again but with AIS 105/4 micro with PN-11 adapter at f/4.
-
Last example for now a Nikkor Scanner lens. It has fixed aperture but how difficult can it be to make a lens with very little CA?
That is the smallest lens of them all (a 7-lens design as I remember). Just a few cm long and a couple of cm wide put into a small adapter that just needs a M42 to Z adapter.
I don't have any Z-extenders to get higher magnification but lens will do well also at higher magnifications.
-
Ok......one more example. The smallest lens. It sits in a Ø18 to RMS adapter and then from RMS to M39 and then M39 to Z-adapter.
With this setup it has a little higher magnification then the scanner Nikkor lens. This lens is a Minolta scanner lens from a Dimage 5400 scanner. This that was the name. Very tiny lens.....but it does well.
Minolta could also design lenses but I have no idea if lens was made inhouse and if Minolta made their own glass like Nikon, Canon etc.
-
All crops are 100% crops. That the reason I split the images in pairs so one image did not exceed the max. allowed file size.
-
If I understand correctly, faster lenses suffer from the LoCA more. Stopping down will mitigate the problem. I guess the scanner lenses are relatively slow (around f5.6?).
-
I don't know the aperture of the scanner lens.
Information here says it is an 8 element design in 4 groups and designed by a German company (mirold optics). This was new information for me.
https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens (https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens)
But probably slower than f/2.8.
I can do a similar test with AFS 105 stopped down. The first images in the thread of the drawing instruments where with lens stopped down to maybe f/8.
-
Here AFS 105/2.8 stopped down to f/8 which reduces the problem to maybe an acceptable level for many I guess.
What I also observed is that at closets focus distance the aperture on body shows f/4.8 ......I need to go to lager distance to have f/2.8 shown but aperture was full open.
The images here is therefore only a bit stopped down to show f/8 on body.
-
The scanner lenses still do a better job......
-
Here is how the old Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 looks when stopped down to f/8 on lens with M-adapter (to achieve 1:1 at closets focus distance).
It does a better job than the AFS 105/2.8?
-
Here AFS 105/2.8 stopped down to f/8 which reduces the problem to maybe an acceptable level for many I guess.
What I also observed is that at closets focus distance the aperture on body shows f/4.8 ......I need to go to lager distance to have f/2.8 shown but aperture was full open.
The images here is therefore only a bit stopped down to show f/8 on body.
Nikkors usually show the *effective* aperture, not the nominal f-number (defined for infinity focus). The lens needs to have a factory CPU in order to do this.
The 105/4 Micro-Nikkor set to f/4 is f/8 effective at 1:1, thus if you set f/8 on the aperture ring the lens is effectively f/16 (at 1:1 with the PN-ring). However, with your AFS 105/2.8, if you dial in f/8 on the camera, you do get f/8 effective. You cannot get to f/2.8 at 1:1, since the effective speed is 4.8, as you already have discovered.
Not sure what the effective aperture is on these scanner lenses. My Scanner ED from LS-4000 is around 46mm focal length with nominal aperture f/2.6 if memory serves. That would indicate it operates around f/5.6-f/8 effective when used for photomacrography. I have set up my lens for 1.5X.
-
Lenses for photography are usually a compromise since they need focus to infinity also, and the internal focusing with floating elements makes all (most) loose focal length as they focus closer.
They also struggle with extension tubes/bellows most of them wit IF.
The old unit focusing lenses excel in ability to use extension.
Also,,, a Scanner lens is optimized for a very limited distance range only,,, ::)
Optics are all about sacrifice and optimize for these parameters to suit an intended purpose, all depending on what your need is you will most often settle with one favorite lens do all or you will need a whole shelf full of lenses to choose from depending on the task at hand,,, :o :o :o
-
The scanner lenses will only work [well] within a narrow range of magnifications. As a starting point, 0.8X to 1.6 or thereabouts. The narrower range the better if you achieve changed magnification by using a focusing helicoid. By trial and error found I could run my LS-4000ED scanner lens at m=1.5 (1.5X) with good results. Focus stacking is almost mandatory if subjects have any depth to them, since the depth of field is so paper thin.
I have a Laowa 100mm f/2.8 that in a pinch can go towards m=2, but working distance becomes too short to allow a lens shade. Thus I stop at m=1. The Olympus OM 38mm f/2.8 adapted to Nikon mount can do m=1.7-1.9. It is also very robust and can be deployed under rough field conditions so is my preferred travel lens. For further magnifications, the Laowa 25mm f/2.8 covers m=2.5-5. From then on the solution is using Mitutoyo metallurgical objectives and infinity focus tube lenses for m=5, 10, and 20. Anything m>2 calls for studio work. m> 50 calls for a microscope in most cases.
The magnification m~1.5 is in fact very useful for my work, as it is sufficient for documenting infestations of rust and smut fungi, plus minute details of my aquatic plants. Thus I use the scanner lens approach quite frequently. I put an improvised "lens shade" on it using a C-mount extension tube, and also carefully blackened the interior of the adapter to Z mount because this lens is quite susceptible to flare and stray light.
-
When I need to do a fast macro shot I often put the 55/3.5 micro on as it always delivers good results.
The AFS 105/2.8 can be "downgraded" to a general purpose lens. It has nice bokeh and has a bit low contrast at full aperture so maybe a good portrait lens?`
I think if I find where the lens can be useful it will be more worth than the 200 euro I can get for it if sold private. A dealer will probably not pay more than 100 euro if it is part of a purchase.
I made a couple of more shots with the lens. This time at medium close distance. First example is full open and body says f/3. Attached is the full frame and then three 100% crops showing the focus, close focus blur and far focus blur. CA is much less at this distance. In many cases not a problem?
-
Same test just at f/8. Here I would say that CA is almost gone?
-
I've done thousands of pictures, mostly insects, with this lens and was never bothered by CA but I'm indeed almost always around f6.3 or f8, at least, to get some depth of field. AF is quite handy to get a fast focus that I refine manually when needed. Optically, the old Apo Lanthar is much better, but I can only use it with quiet subjects.
All in all, I find the AFS 105/2.8 a good workhorse, not brilliant but reliably good for outside macro of insects.
-
I have tried to "hunt" outdoor insects with this lens. It requires concentration and a lot of exposures.
The lens feels like good mechanical quality. Cold to the touch so I guess more metal than most newer lenses.
For pure close-up optical quality the AFS 105 is probably the worst of the 105 Nikkors.
To give the AIS 105/4 a chance to show what he can do stopped down a bit I attached the two usual 100% crops with lens set to f/8 with PN11 adapter to get to 1:1 and I used closets focus distance the lens can do.
Still a bit CA but I think an acceptable level and a nice lens.
-
... To give the AIS 105/4 a chance to show what he can do stopped down a bit I attached the two usual 100% crops with lens set to f/8 with PN11 adapter to get to 1:1 and I used closets focus distance the lens can do.
Still a bit CA but I think an acceptable level and a nice lens.
That means you shot at f/16, which will lead to softening due to diffraction. Better quality can be had by focus stacking, however not every subject or occasion will allow this approach.
-
I often try to break the law of nature. Sometimes I feel I am quite successful!
I just tried out the pictured lens / extender combination with lens set close to infinity and aperture to f/5.6.
The result attached with the usual front and back focus to check CA. Not much CA to talk about and quite sharp also (was difficult to hand held)?
Nice long working distance and less CA than with AFS 105/2.8.......but setup not very practical in the field.
Lens itself inside its intended way to work must be quite good.