NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: MEPER on October 22, 2025, 20:08:04
-
A couple of days back I took a short walk and tested the AFS 105 Micro at f/2.8 as a general purpose lens to check bokeh quality etc.
I was quite satisfied with the quality. I did not see any disturbing Longitudinal CA. Lens has VR and is well built.
I will keep it for that purpose. 2nd hand prices are quite low. I have an old "Made in Japan" version.
Last year I purchased a nice 2nd hand AF 105/2.8 D lens. I was expecting this lens (based on rumors) to have less CA at 2.8 close up but not according to the test I performed (to my surprise). But a nice lens anyway and it was cheap.
I think the AFS 105 Micro can make nice portraits at 2.8.
-
One more also shot at 2.8.
-
If you use jpgs off the camera, most of the CA issues have been mitigated by in-camera processing. Or at least not so annoying.
i never liked the AFS 105mm f/2.8 G. Handling was awkward for my small hands, CA was troublesome, and sharpness not stellar at the widest apertures. I kept it just for three months before getting my paws on the first of several CV APO-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 lenses. These days I either use the Vigtländer APO 65mm f/2 or the Nikkor MC 105mm f/2.8. The first is heavy and haptics could be better, the latter a bit of the thick side but quite light in weight, plus it has AF when the lens is used for non-"macro" work. Both lenses yield excellent results. Sadly my trustworthy 125mm APO-Lantars in F-mount don't handle well on the Z bodies.
-
I was looking forward to buying my first macro lens, just about the time Nikon released this version of the lens. I bought it and set about learning how to use it.
Then read Birna's review and got very depressed.
A while later i started using it for general photography too and was stunned at the quality of some of the results.
Here is a subject and configuration that very few people would recommend...but on this occasion seemed to work
D300 105mm VR TC14
(https://pbase.com/celidh/image/149370394/original.jpg)
-
I have wondered, and being asked, many times over the years why the response to the AFS Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR differed so much between the users. Broken expectations alone cannot be the sole explanation. Perhaps there were quaility issues in the production run(s)? Or something inside might get out of alignment. The 24mm f/2 Nikkor had a similar fate. Most of the samples i have tried over the years simply have been awful. However, once in a while I have encountered a really nice performing 24. [I own now one of these myelf -- my third attempt]. Why??
The answer is I don't know.
Colin: an owl as white as the driven snow. You must have been quite close even with the 1.4X,
-
Colin: an owl as white as the driven snow.
You must have been quite close even with the 1.4X,
Thanks Birna
I'd guess i could have been 100m away and there was a fair degree of cropping
That's why I'm pleased with the performance of my copy of this lens
I also like the expression on its face "I'm coming back for you!"
-
What I found a bit disappointing with the lens was the amount of OOF CA using the lens at full aperture and max. magnification.
I have attached two crops of such an image I just took at printed text shot at an angle to get both front and back focus.
I have done the same with the older AF 105/2.8 D. But first the AFS 105/2.8.
I think the lens if a very fine lens for "normal" use.
-
And here the AF 105/2.8 D.
-
Normally you would expect a lens filled with expensive ED and super ED glass be much better performer when it comes to CA then its "older sister" which just use normal cheap glass elements?
I think that was the reason many got a bit disappointed with the lens.
-
To have something very old to compare with. Here are two similar crops using the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor-P (compensating type) using the M-adapter to make it 1:1.
This lens has only five lens elements.
-
Here is an example of how it can be done. The lens used is a Scanner Nikkor used in Scanners like LS-5000 ED.
I could have added more extension to get larger magnification but the results would be the same. No (almost) CA.
If I had a choice I would rather get a lens dedicated to macro work. To get that I need to adapt it to Z-mount.
I know that the Z-version of the 105/2.8 is much better. It is just......now I have the other lens.
The lenses I used most for close-up is either the 55/3.5 Nikkor-P or the Scanner Nikkor or a Minolta Scanner lens which is also very good.
The AFS 105/2.8 is now a general purpose lens and I think it is very good for this purpose and then nice to know that it can focus rather close.
-
I wonder who develops the special Nikkors like the Scanner Nikkors if it is another department that the people from the video in another thread?
The Minolta Scanner lens is quite small but performs very good and the adapter setup I have gives a higher magnification than the Nikkor setup so the same example using the Minolta scanner lens.
It is quite fun that these lenses could be purchased years ago for almost nothing just getting a defective scanner and take out the lens. Now the prices has raised a bit as it has rumored that the lenses are very good.
It is important to know if a defective scanner still has the lens or not.
-
Scanner lenses are "better" because they are dedicated to a single task. They only designed to work over a very narrow range of magnifications. They don't focus to infinity. High contrast is easier achievable when the lens only encounters [nearly] fixed illumination and is well protected from sky glare and point-light flare. And so on. Put in an ED element or two and the lens is nearly apochromatic in its design range.
I often use a Scanning ED Nikkor from a dysfunctional Nikon 4000ED scanner. It is mounted to give a fixed 1.3X magnification. There is no aperture and no focusing, but I did add a CPU to provide EXIF data. No problem when focus stacking is used. Images are crisp and clear and virtually free of CA of any kind.
-
I have not tested how far these lenses can focus (if lens is mounted close to the sensor)?
Nikon has probably not seen a market to develop such a near-focus lens for either F og Z mount.
I also have the large 9000 ED lens but have not mounted it yet so it can be used on the camera.
Both the small 7 lens (used in 4000ED, 5000ED) and the large 14 element lens (used in 8000ED, 9000ED) are described in this article:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/articolo%20Scanner%20Nikkor%20ED.pdf (http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/articolo%20Scanner%20Nikkor%20ED.pdf)
How to mount them described here:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/scanner-nikkor-ed-7-element-lens (https://www.closeuphotography.com/scanner-nikkor-ed-7-element-lens)
It is very impressing lenses. The large one should have a lot in common with the old printing Nikkor lens.
-
If you push any lens way outside its design limits, performance will suffer. Very strong field curvature is commonly seen if the special optics for close-ups are forced to focus towards distant scenery. Usually accompanied by horrible spherical aberration and/or coma.
Thre "X-ray" lenses show us the opposite behaviour, since these lenses both have extremely short back focus and are made for fixed infinity foucs. When put on a camera, we tend to get close-ups and concomitantly, all the special aberrations seen in the close-up lenses mentioned above when the latter is pushed towards infinity.
There is no free lunch. Our best hope would be to find a balance point along the focusing scale.
-
The rejuvenated Scanning ED lens, mounted to give 1.3X magnification. The CPU reports the lens as 46mm f/2.6, and I added a nice little lens shade to it.
-
I have done the same with the older AF 105/2.8 D. But first the AFS 105/2.8.
Very bad results. Which Nikkor lens is better?
-
Complete control of axial or longitudinal CA never was a top priority with the earlier Micro-Nikkors. It's easy to see why as this correction is complex and not really required when the lens was used for reproduction of any kind of flat subjects. It also is less obvious when you get outside the near range, i.e. when image magnification drops, plus most users tend to stop down their lenses and the latter also mitigates CA to a large extent.
-
Anyway, before I "dumped" my AFS 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor VR ED-IF G (puuh a mouthful), or more precisely, replaced it with the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5, i did on occasion use it for more landscape-type photography. Which at the time implied mainly IR.
For IR the AFS 105 tended, as expeced, towards making hot spots, but this depends on the aperature, scene and filter(s) used. For the frozen water fall here, the lens rendered the scene OK and even at f/16, no hot spot was detectable.
-
I have been through most of the Micro Nikkors as well.
105mm AF-S and 105mm AF-D f/2.8 where both replaced by the wonderful APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 with CPU's supplied by Birna, probably one of the most CPU'ed lens types :o
The APO Lanthar is almost fully corrected so is the old 105mm f/4 and the bellows version as it is same optics also wonderful in [IR]
Best must be the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 S IMHO more or less flawless
-
I will try out the AIS 105/4 Micro.
It could also be fun to get some 3d party Z Extension tubes and test some Z-lenses for Macro use.
Like this:
https://www.tombolphoto.com/macro-with-nikon-z-extension-tubes/ (https://www.tombolphoto.com/macro-with-nikon-z-extension-tubes/)
I like the closeup image he shows. I have a couple of the 24-70/4 S lenses.
The 2nd one which is brand new I got by accident as an offer at ebay was accepted. It seems because it is a kit lens some people think those are "junk" so they sell them cheap.
-
"Best must be the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 S IMHO more or less flawless"
Not for IR as it hot spots rather quickly upon stopping down. Otherwise I agree.
-
Complete control of axial or longitudinal CA never was a top priority
I do not know a Nikkor lens without CAs, except my Nikkor-M 3.5/105mm.
-
The view camera Nikkors such as the AM 120mm f/5.6 ED & AM 210mm f/5.6 ED deliver extremely clean images. Same goes for the Nikkor-T 270mm /6.3 & 360mm f/8. The CA issues are better "masked" by film due to its lower effective resolving power anyway.
The Z native 105/2.8 MC is an example of a modern lens with very low CA. Do note that lateral CA can normally be taken quite efficiently by processing software; thus that don't bother me as much as axial (longitudinal) CA discussed earler.
-
Here is how the AIS 105/4 Micro performed at f/4 with PN11 extension tube (makes it 1:1).
To my eye it is about the same as the other 105 Micro Nikkors I tested.
I think the 55/3.5 Nikkor-P is a bit of an achievement 60 years back without exotic glass, large computers and with only 5 lens elements :-)
-
The view camera Nikkors such as the AM 120mm f/5.6 ED
I have forgotten this lens, it is acceptable, but I mean af-s lenses like the af-s 2,8 105 g and af-d or ai Nikkors. The micro 4/105 is also bad corrected
-
In real use the 105 Micro Nikkors are quite good. There are many examples of very nice pictures shot by those lenses.
I have a book with close up images taken by the Nikon photographer John Shaw. He used the 105/4 Micro as far as I remember. He also used stacked lenses, reversed lenses, Tele lenses with extension tubes (180 and 200mm). He tried to get the best out of the lenses where I try to get the worst out of the lenses just for demonstration.
A new funny example with an old Voigtländer Color-Skopar 50/2.8 (4 lens elements in 3 groups).
The background CA is a little bit worse than the foreground CA. But very well controlled. I am not lens design expert but reason for less CA could be that contrast is a little low wide open. Used for real pictures the lens really shines at f/5.6 - f/8.
The 50/3.5 version should be even better corrected. Many talented lens designers back in time. Maybe talent was more important back in time.
-
This lens:
-
Another well known brand Pentax. Years ago I got a Super-Macro-Takumar 50/4. I think it is a 4 lens design.
It is first time I use it. I got it from a friend that did not want it anymore.
CA is well controlled and also here better controlled in foreground than background. Wonder if there is a known reason for this.
Think I one day will try it out with real pictures. Based on reviews it looks like a fine lens. At least many people are happy with it.
-
Another well known brand Pentax.
Do you have experiences with Nikkors without CAs?
-
Almost 100% without CA then my experience are the Scanner Nikkors (those sitting in 4000ED, 5000ED scanners and 8000ED, 9000ED scanners).
You need the specialized Nikkors to get lenses that are almost 100% corrected.
Birna and others in here own some of the very specialized Nikkors where some are made for industrial use.
There is also an 105mm UV-Nikkor and som APO-Nikkors but those I have never used. Ultra Micro Nikkors also that where for producing electronic chips back in time.
I have the old 58/1.2 Noct Nikkor but have not tried to "push" it to test it for CA. I could try that.
Then for Z-mount one of the best corrected lenses are the 105/2.8 Micro as mentioned here several times (I don't have it). Lab test reviews exist for this lens with image examples.
I will assume that the Z-mount 58/0.95 Noct is very well corrected and also the Plena 135 mm. The Z 50/1.2 probably also.
When I get a Z 35 mm auto extension tube I will check my Z-lenses for macro performance like 50/1.8 S and 24-70/4 S.
I tested the Z DX zoom 12-28 at 28mm setting (was updating it with the latest firmware). It can focus very close (0.19m from focus plane in all settings) and can do 0.21x (not a macro but still close focus).
I got surprised how well corrected this zoom is. Normally those are best in the mid zoom range. A couple of crops added here.
-
The general problems with adding extension to zoom lenses is that they become very awkward in handling and focusing. This is because they will *not* be parfocal across the zoom range. Thus any change of zoom setting throws the image completely out of focus and/or change magnification and image framing. Plus for most zoom lenses in particular those with shorter focal lengths, their working distance can shrink significantly -- even becoming negative, i.e. the focus plane is inside the lens assembly. Usually adding a good achromatic close-up lens will be better for zoom lenses such as 70/80-200 or similar. For shorter lenses, adding the close-up lens may not give any really useful increase in magnification.
-
I have the old 58/1.2 Noct Nikkor but have not tried to "push" it to test it for CA. I could try that.
this could be very surprising..
-
For very close focus I switch off the AF if possible and just set the lens to closets focus distance.
For super macro the AF is just disturbing and will use up the battery faster :-)
Some lenses show better CA-performance when stopped down a bit but not the AFS 105/2.8 Micro as attached image shows.
There is Z-version review here:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-mc-105mm-f-2-8-vr-s-macro/2 (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-mc-105mm-f-2-8-vr-s-macro/2)
It shows low CA and this is also mentioned by the reviewer.
When Nikon develop a general purpose lens they need to balance price and performance.
Will try to push the AIS 58/1.2 and see what it can do but I guess no exotic glass in this lens. It was famous for the hand polished front element.
-
Some lenses show better CA-performance when stopped down a bit but not the AFS 105/2.8 Micro as attached image shows.
In my eyes this image is symbolic for Nikon lenses
-
In my eyes this image is symbolic for Nikon lenses
Would be for nearly all lenses.
-
Zeiss, Voigtländer, Leica have apo consumer lenses, or not?
-
The 58/1.2 Noct was quite bad regarding LO-CA at 1.2. I expected that.
But the old AFS 17-35/2.8 set to 24mm and then with a 8mm extension tube did quite well.
If a high quality zoom is made so it is good at both ends then it is often very good in the mid zoom range.
The 17-35 could still be one of the best 24mm Nikkors :-)
It was my best 24mm lens for a long time. It was better then the old 24mm Nikkor primes (AI/AF).
It confirms that a zoom like this does not like much extension. Had to set it to infinity to be able to focus and lens was very close to object.
The attached example is at 2.8. Not bad.
-
Zeiss and Leica APO's are another price level.
Voigtländer seems to have some very nice lenses in same price range as Nikon lenses.
The Z 105/2.8 Micro is cheap compared to its performance it seems. If you can call it an APO I don't know. No lens is 100% corrected.
The new Z 58/0.95 and 135/1.8 Plena are expensive and I would expect them to be very well corrected.
The examples I show are 100% crops from a 21MP DX sensor (high pixel density). Not much to do with real world image examples.
I just find it fun to test to extremes. Sometimes you find a lens that is exceptional good for its price.
-
Zeiss, Voigtländer, Leica have apo consumer lenses, or not?
'APO' is not equal to, nor implies, total lack of CA. The usual implication is the optics are optimised for three colour reference points. Plenty of 'wiggle space' for colur transmission remains. I own at least three different Voigtländer lenses designated 'APO' and vestiges of CA can be found for each if the output is scrutinised at the nit-picking level. The practical importance of this is close to zero, as their colour rendition in general is excellent. The Leica APO-Telyt 180mm f/3.4 appears less well corrected than the CV 180mm f/4, which in turn is less well corrected than the APO-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5. The APO 65mm f/2 Lanthar is not as well corrected as the Coastal APO 60mm f/4, but the former is free of the hot spot tendency of the latter.
It would be helpful in further discussion if a distinction is made between lateral and axial CA. The former almost has lost significance in the digital era simply because the correction largely can be made in-camera (jpgs) or in post processing.
Axial CA is less easy to get rid of *completely*, but stopping the lens down usually helps to some extent.
Finally, lenses are not binary performers -- either entire bad or sublimely excellent -- but encompass a wide range of performance levels.
-
All Sigma 105mm macro lenses are better corrected than Nikon micros
-
The 58/1.2 Noct was quite bad regarding LO-CA at 1.2. I expected that.
do you have a result?
-
The AIS 58/1.2 Noct Nikkor with Extension at f/1.2 has very bad LO CA. It makes no sense to use it that way after thinking a bit what I was doing as it was designed for reducing coma at infinity (e.g. images of stars and general low light images) so you don't get the arrow like distortion of point light sources (even in the corners). It is a specialized lens and it takes some time to learn to use it to get the best out of it.
I have no experience with Sigma macros as I have a long time relationship with Nikkors and also vintage Voigtländer lenses and a few others.
I did make a random search for a Sigma 105mm macro review and found this one:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sigma-105mm-12-8-dg-os-macro-hsm/ (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sigma-105mm-12-8-dg-os-macro-hsm/)
If you scroll down to where CA is validated you will notice strong LO-CA.
Here the Nikkor-Z version should do better but then Sigma may have made a newer version of the lens which is on par with the Nikkor.
There are many parameters for a lens. I can probably find at least one parameter where the older AFS 105 is better than the new Z-version.
E.g. built quality and if I did use it a lot for portraits I might find out that I like it better for that purpose. You never know :-)
The most important is to come out and makes some real images.
-
If you scroll down to where CA is validated you will notice strong LO-CA.
He writes better than Nikon?
-
Yes, better than the AFS 105/2.8 that started this thread. The AFS 105 Micro is known to have quite strong LO CA. Many sold it because of that. I feel I can get more out of the AFS as a general purpose lens than the money I can get for it if I sell it. With Nikon Z-version LO-CA almost disappeared.
A LO-CA test for the Z-version can be found here:
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-mc-105mm-f2-8-vr-s-review/2/ (https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-mc-105mm-f2-8-vr-s-review/2/)
Almost no LO-CA but then again a Sigma lens is mentioned. An Art version. I don't know it but probably very good.
At least its MTF curves looks good but not possible to see a lens performance just looking at MTF curves.
You may find the review and see if it fits your needs?
-
The Nikkor-Z 50/1.8 S is an example of a lens where LO-CA disappears when stopped down a bit.
Quite low a 1.8 and gone (almost) at 2.8. It may be a lens that can handle a 35mm extension tube quite well?
-
That particular review put the Nikkor 105 MC and the Sigma Art 105 on the same level of quality. One better here, another better there. A toss up, apparently.
Having a nice native Z lens for close-up work is OK for me as I don't intend to purchase third-party products if this can be avoided.
Now, the value of any lens is what it can deliver to the user. Not all images need to fall into the category "needle sharp, no CA". On NG, we see plenty examples of this.
-
Yes, and Nikon photographer like John Shaw shows that lenses that has a bit of LO-CA close up can make very nice images in general.
Lot of examples and also shows that the Nikkors are durable. Result of a Google search below:
https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Shaw+Nikon+close+up+images&sca_esv=c66570702dbaae6e&udm=2&biw=2187&bih=1117&ei=u_78aL-QIaPCwPAP0LeIwQ0&ved=0ahUKEwj_2aSv5r-QAxUjIRAIHdAbItgQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=John+Shaw+Nikon+close+up+images&gs_lp=Egtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZyIfSm9obiBTaGF3IE5pa29uIGNsb3NlIHVwIGltYWdlc0jrEVD2B1jVDXABeACQAQCYAUCgAe4CqgEBNrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAIgGAZIHAKAHjgKyBwC4BwDCBwDIBwA&sclient=gws-wiz-img (https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Shaw+Nikon+close+up+images&sca_esv=c66570702dbaae6e&udm=2&biw=2187&bih=1117&ei=u_78aL-QIaPCwPAP0LeIwQ0&ved=0ahUKEwj_2aSv5r-QAxUjIRAIHdAbItgQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=John+Shaw+Nikon+close+up+images&gs_lp=Egtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZyIfSm9obiBTaGF3IE5pa29uIGNsb3NlIHVwIGltYWdlc0jrEVD2B1jVDXABeACQAQCYAUCgAe4CqgEBNrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAIgGAZIHAKAHjgKyBwC4BwDCBwDIBwA&sclient=gws-wiz-img)
-
Having a nice native Z lens for close-up work is OK for me as I don't intend to purchase third-party products if this can be avoided.
Why not, better is the enemy of good
-
So, you are using Sigma lenses yourself?
-
The thread has deviated a bit from it original purpose but I think we are used to that. It will come back one day when I go out and take more images with the AFS 105.
This test from Cameralabs shows that it is not all about "perfection".
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikkor-50mm-f1-4-ai-s-vintage-lens-review/ (https://www.cameralabs.com/nikkor-50mm-f1-4-ai-s-vintage-lens-review/)
But we are also some "nerds" in here which just like to "play" a bit with the equipment we have.
-
The thread has deviated a bit from it original purpose
What is now your question?
-
No question from me.
About the "deviation" was blot a comment not a complain.
My plan is to post more images using the AFS 105 Micro when I get time. Both macro images and normal purpose usage.
Birna had a question for.
-
Here is a picture where the lens is used for its original purpose. Close to its closets focus and a bit stopped down.
This is handhold. If I should use it for something serious I would make a stable setup.
The top text "Voigtar" is slightly out of focus and a slightly green cast can be observed.
The lens is usable as a macro and where focus is perfect the CA is gone and the sharpness is good.
Picture is lens lens of a Voigtländer Brillant camera.
The weather was to bad today to take som general purpose images.
-
Same object just shot with the Nikkor-P 55/3.5 Micro + M-adapter.
It is the lens I use most for close-up.
For macro use I have no doubt that it is better for this purpose.
It would be interesting to know the design goals (requirements) before the AFS lens was developed and if all the requirements was met before it was decided to approve the lens for production.
Maybe it will show up in "1001 nights" one day so we can get a look "behind the curtain".
I think many would have expected the AFS 105 to have the macro performance of the current Z-version.
That said I was very happy with the AFS lens performance as just a general purpose lens (the few first images in this thread). Now I am even more convinced that I will not use it as a dedicated macro lens.
-
If I had nailed the focus 100% with AFS lens the white text would have been as detailed as in 55/3.5 image (I assume).
You can see the two metal rivets is where the focus is in AFS image. That is how it goes when it is handheld.
-
I will try out the AIS 105/4 Micro.
It could also be fun to get some 3d party Z Extension tubes and test some Z-lenses for Macro use.
Like this:
https://www.tombolphoto.com/macro-with-nikon-z-extension-tubes/ (https://www.tombolphoto.com/macro-with-nikon-z-extension-tubes/)
I like the closeup image he shows. I have a couple of the 24-70/4 S lenses.
The 2nd one which is brand new I got by accident as an offer at ebay was accepted. It seems because it is a kit lens some people think those are "junk" so they sell them cheap.
Nikon Z lenses are floating element lenses, not suitable for extension.
'Old design' unit focusing lenses are much better for this!
-
AF-S Micro Nikkor 105 1:2.8 G ED as a tendency towards purple fringing in high contrast, anything against a clear sky and reflections i water for instance, when used as a general purpose lens.
-
Ok, I will try it out when I receive the FotoDiox 35mm tube. I like to experiment :-)
The purple fringing probably will look something like this is scrolled down to Chromatic Aberration headline.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-65-f2-apo-macro-review/ (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-65-f2-apo-macro-review/)
It is a review of the Voigtländer 65/2 apo-macro which shows that this lens is well corrected. It is tempting to get it but I think the old Nikkor-P 55/3.5 it still good enough for my purpose :-)
-
The purple fringing probably will look something like this is scrolled down to Chromatic Aberration headline.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-65-f2-apo-macro-review/ (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-65-f2-apo-macro-review/)
It is a review of the Voigtländer 65/2 apo-macro which shows that this lens is well corrected. I
What has this review to do with the 105 G ED?
-
The review just shows how I assume the 105 G ED would perform in a similar situation regarding purple fringe. I could probably find a similar fountain in Copenhagen and try it out.
It also shows that a lot of other lenses from top lens produces can have those troubles with LO CA. Then I also got a bit excited by the Voigtländer 65/2 after reading the review.
The Z-version has contacts which is a big advantage for a 3rd party MF-lens.
Back on track. This reviewer still uses his 105 G ED of various reasons. Review updated 2023 (105 G ED is from 2006):
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-vr-105mm-f2-8g-macro-lens (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-vr-105mm-f2-8g-macro-lens)
He like the built quality and he has learned how to "mitigate" the weak sides of the lens. He like the bokeh of the lens.
-
The review just shows how I assume the 105 G ED would perform in a similar situation regarding purple fringe.
Sorry, for me that is not very logical. If you like reading lens reviews LensTip is interesting for you, here you can compare the 105 brands and versions. I am not a lens tester.
-
A couple of days back I took a short walk and tested the AFS 105 Micro at f/2.8 as a general purpose lens to check bokeh quality etc.
I was quite satisfied with the quality. I did not see any disturbing Longitudinal CA. Lens has VR and is well built.
I will keep it for that purpose. 2nd hand prices are quite low. I have an old "Made in Japan" version.
Last year I purchased a nice 2nd hand AF 105/2.8 D lens. I was expecting this lens (based on rumors) to have less CA at 2.8 close up but not according to the test I performed (to my surprise). But a nice lens anyway and it was cheap.
I think the AFS 105 Micro can make nice portraits at 2.8.
Since I obtained the Z 2.8/105 MC the F-mounts are not interesting for me anymore. I did not like the focussing sound of the copy I have used
-
An interesting alternative to the AF/AFS/MF 105 Micro-Nikkors is the Laowa 100mm f/2.8. Image quality is very good and it focuses to 2X life-size on its own. I've used it for close-ups (stacking in studio) and as a short "tele" for ordinary photography. MF only, though. Price is not very elevated.
-
Hola. I use the Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4, sometimes with TC-200, or the PN11, and I also shoot with the Chinese lens that Birna mentions, the LAOWA 100 F2.8, they are different, the Chinese one is more versatile and effective, but depending on the camera, the light, the time of day, the distance, everything changes.
-
SNIP
It would be interesting to know the design goals (requirements) before the AFS lens was developed and if all the requirements was met before it was decided to approve the lens for production.
SNIP
I will take a stab at this - from the underwater shooter's perspective.
Advantage 1 (over previous D version): Full time manual focusing, no need to flip controls so much faster to switch focusing modes. Important when shooting small fish while scuba diving on coral reefs (10 to 15 cm length is a common size range).
Advantage 2 (over previous D version): Fixed length of the lens. One can therefore have a lens port just long enough to fit the lens without having more space between the glass as one focuses on greater distance. This enables the attachment of numerous "wet" lenses. One can attach and remove while under water. Optics optimally designed for this purpose. Nauticam has innovated a lot in this department. See attached pix. The SMC-1 and piggyback Multiplier enable >> 1:1. The EMWL came out during Covid. The version shown covers 130°. I have other objectives as well. Between the EMWL objective and lens port is the focusing unit designed for the 105 AFS. I have the Nauticam Water Jacket fitted between the 130° objective and the focusing unit as the location has a lot of suspended particles that show as black specks when between these two parts. The Water Jacket is filled with cleaner water (in maple syrup jug).
-
Interesting setup. Thanks for your information on alternate uses for this lens.
-
I was out today in overcast (near rain) weather to took a few "snaps" with AFS 105/2.8 at "non-macro" distances. Most at full aperture at relative slow shutter speed. No pictures shows bad Lo-Ca. Bokeh is nice and no hard outlines. For this purpose I like the lens very much.
-
A couple more.
-
One more.