NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on March 24, 2017, 16:57:50
-
Here are some brief notes on my use of the Nikon AF-S 105mm f/1.4 for close-up work and stacking. And yes, I know it is not a lens for close-up work, but that has never stopped me.
I find this lens very sharp, certainly sharp enough for the work I do. However, so far I find way too much color-fringing... all over the place. That is not what I need. That I consider a serious drawback and may be a deal breaker for me.
Aside from being sharp enough, the best thing about this lens is its “style,” whatever we can agree that means, its own “look,” especially if you consider bokeh in the mix. So it has a very nice style.
For my work, the focus throw is too short for detailed focusing and stacking work, at least IMO.
This lens is better than the classic Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm lens, which also was sharp enough, but was not well-enough corrected, and it lacked the style I see in the new Nikon 105mm f/1.4
So, am interested what others find about this very interesting lens.
-
I find the images from this lens to be very pleasing. Sharp, smooth transition to out of focus areas, not too much CA for my use. Autofocus works excellently on the D5 but on the D810 I am less satisfied, as there are many out of focus shots when photographing moving subjects wide open, it is perhaps that a single processor can't analyse the AF sensor data fast enough. With the D5, in daylight, out of focus shots are very unusual with this lens in my use. I've also had very good results in a dark church; very reliable focus and sharp enough to crop if needed.
It causes moire in the hair on the D810 even wide open it seems to outresolve the 36 MP sensor by some margin. I am happy shooting it with the D5 but of course for sunlit situations the better low ISO IQ of the D810 is nice. I think to improve in-focus shot rates with the D810, I just need to be more careful and not expect instant AF.
Overall I couldn't be happier with the images from this lens. It is a bit like a mini 200/2.
https://flic.kr/p/Rpfk83
https://flic.kr/p/RqpQ9V
https://flic.kr/p/RrWuNn
-
Well, I don't care about auto-focus; it's nice for family snapshots. And yes, I have not had much success with autofocus on the Nikon D810. The bokeh on this lens is very nice indeed and, as mentioned, it has its own style or look That is great.
It's just darned CA that is no fun at all. It seems lens makers frequently believe that if you make a lens sharp enough and fast enough, you have a winner. Well, they have a winner with the 105mm F/1.4, but they did not bother to correct the lens enough so that all of the fringing, etc. is kept at a minimum. This lens, IMO (for my work) fails at that. Too bad, because I could use a lens like that!
-
Michael, do you use this lens with additional extension?
-
CA occurrence is also a function of external variables, not just the lens. I certainly would not describe the 105/1.4E design team as "they did not bother to correct the lens enough so that all of the fringing, etc. is kept at a minimum". On the contrary, the properties of this lens show exactly the opposite. It is a very well conceived and nicely rounded-off optical design. One can hardly blame the designers for "flaws" when a user puts the lens to work well outside its parameter range ... Besides, would one pay the extra price and the massive increase in bulk for getting an improved design with slightly less potential for colour fringing?
I have shot a lot with this lens and never once being "bothered" by any significant CA. It is also important to note that some of the perceived fringing actually is a result of the lens outresolving its host sensor.
-
CA occurrence is also a function of external variables, not just the lens. I certainly would not describe the 105/1.4E design team as "they did not bother to correct the lens enough so that all of the fringing, etc. is kept at a minimum". On the contrary, the properties of this lens show exactly the opposite. It is a very well conceived and nicely rounded-off optical design. One can hardly blame the designers for "flaws" when a user puts the lens to work well outside its parameter range ... Besides, would one pay the extra price and the massive increase in bulk for getting an improved design with slightly less potential for colour fringing?
I have shot a lot with this lens and never once being "bothered" by any significant CA. It is also important to note that some of the perceived fringing actually is a result of the lens outresolving its host sensor.
That may be. When I test a lens like this, I do look for the more extreme situations. I am not done testing, just reporting what I have found so far. If it is my fault, I will hopefully figure that out.
As for your note "Besides, would one pay the extra price and the massive increase in bulk for getting an improved design with slightly less potential for colour fringing?"
Yes I would.
-
When all is said and done, for me, the short focus throw of this lens is a limiting factor. With a lens that sharp, to properly focus-stack, I need more throw to space out the stacked layers. This is partly because I tend to stack wide-open and sort of paint blocks of focus by layering. To do that, I need a longer throw. Of course, I could put in on a focus rail and stack that way, which would work, but a focus rail is not the best way to stack.
To repeat: what I like most about this lens is the "style." To indicate that, here is a simple photo, in fact the first I took with the lens, that shows (at least to me) the character of the lens. And I may end up keeping it. I am not looking down on it, but just honestly evaluating it for my work and what I am doing.
This done with the 105mm f/1.4 at ISO 64, aperture 6.3 and the Nikon D810.
This is what is left of a hand-made wooden hobby-horse, worked over by my kids and now my grand-kids.
-
(...)
So, am interested what others find about this very interesting lens.
Are you?
-
So, am interested what others find about this very interesting lens.
Are you?
I am interested or I would not have bothered to post at all. Lenses I really can't use, I just send back and don't bother to post about them. There is a lot to like about this lens, but as I try to point out, for my particular kind of photography, there are problems with the lens. Let me mention some, again, for particular use:
Not a close-up lens (not the len's fault)
Too short a focus-throw (makes it very difficult to do multi-layer stacks)
Auto-Focus (don't like the results so far, but I seldom use AF)
Fair amount of vignetting (not too bad)
Secondary longitudinal CA colors (magental/green) (too much for me)
So, if you love this lens and view my comments as dissing it, think again please. I am just talking about using this lens for the work I do, not necessarily for what the lens is designed to do. There are a few folks on this forum that stack focus.
-
I find this whole thread either counter-intuitive or intelligently insincere. This thread seems like a stubborn experiment where someone is trying to force a square peg into a round hole and then complains about it, time after time. I think it was Einstein who said something like "doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is insane."
Experimenting is fine. But once one has realized that lens isn't fit for close-up work, then one shrugs, smiles, writes one brief yet clear post and moves on. Kind of what we can find in the lens reviews at the old naturfotograf.com.
Where does this constant need to complain come from? That is the question begging for an answer. Not in a public forum, but in the peace of one's own mind. The source is not a small black inanimate commercial piece of glass and metal, that is certain.
-
I would guess, since you use that lens basically away from its definition for close up and macro, that CA gets quite increased - an experience I share with many other lenses, as I use them often outside their definition, too, like using projection lenses for close up work, which were made for usually very long projection distances.
When Bjorn made his comment about what you stated Michael, all he wanted to do IMHO is, to kindly remind you, that making such statements will point back at you, as YOU are using that lens outside its technical defintion as set by the lens designers, so please keep that in mind.
-
I don't see it as complaining, but I will not comment anymore on it.
-
I don't see it as complaining, but I will not comment anymore on it.
I was writing while you posted, so re-phrased what i wrote.
I also didn't take your posts as complaining. I understand that some people may take them like that. Let's all please be reminded that we are an international bunch, English is not our native language (for most or many) and we originate from many cultures.
I view Michael's posts as him taking us along in his thought process while trying to determine about the lens.
I appreciate that, but also appreciate the views of others in this thread. It gives good insights.
YMMV
-
I was writing while you posted, so re-phrased what i wrote.
I also didn't take your posts as complaining. I understand that some people may take them like that. Let's all please be reminded that we are an international bunch, English is not our native language (for most or many) and we originate from many cultures.
I view Michael's posts as him taking us along in his thought process while trying to determine about the lens.
I appreciate that, but also appreciate the views of others in this thread. It gives good insights.
YMMV
What I thought I was asking is: are there any other folks who are using this lens for stacking focus and have some experience to share with the problems involved, like too short a focus throw, too much CA, etc.
I have not used this lens in strange ways, unless trying to extract a crop from this lens is "strange." I am simply shooting as close as the lens allow. For example, I have not tried to use extensions, etc. although I will today, to see what happens, etc. I don't have time to go through this kind of discussion all the time, when I was hopefully searching for folks with similar experience and to discuss that. I am sure it is my fault, not being able to express myself well enough to avoid misunderstanding. That's life. Like all of you, I have other things to do.
-
What I thought I was asking is: are there any other folks who are using this lens for stacking focus and have some experience to share with the problems involved, like too short a focus throw, too much CA, etc.
I have not used this lens in strange ways, unless trying to extract a crop from this lens is "strange." I am simply shooting as close as the lens allow. For example, I have not tried to use extensions, etc. although I will today, to see what happens, etc. I don't have time to go through this kind of discussion all the time, when I was hopefully searching for folks with similar experience and to discuss that. I am sure it is my fault, not being able to express myself well enough to avoid misunderstanding. That's life. Like all of you, I have other things to do.
I understood your post exactly as you have repeated it here. However, i cannot reply to your question because i don't have the lens. It is also unlikely i will have it, as it is somewhat (understatement alert) out of my reach.
Hoping others will chime in to give their experienced reply on your questions.
-
Michael, with respect to the "too short a focus-throw", have you tried the "electronic" stacking you can do e.g. with the CamRanger? (Instead of moving the focus by hand using the software and the electronic focus drive system in camera and lens to change the focus distance in small steps) I found this very helpful for doing some shots at work (so I can not show here, sorry).
-
Michael, with respect to the "too short a focus-throw", have you tried the "electronic" stacking you can do e.g. with the CamRanger? (Instead of moving the focus by hand using the software and the electronic focus drive system in camera and lens to change the focus distance in small steps) I found this very helpful for doing some shots at work (so I can not show here, sorry).
I have looked at various "stepper" solutions, but although in winter I work inside, in the warmer months I work outside and already have enough to carry, etc. But that for me is not really the issue. I have no problem using a focus rail (and stepping it myself) and I do this with lenses like the Noct Nikkor, the CRT Nikkor, and others. The question for me is: Since in trying to accommodate the focus-stacking software (Zerene Stacker, in my case), focusing on a rail is said (by author Rik Littlefield) to be the poorest of the main three ways to focus stack:
(1) The best is on a bellows, locking the front standard (with the lens) and moving the rear standard.
(2) Using the lens focus ring.
(3) Using a focus rail.
However, I will be experimenting with the new Nikor 105mm f/1.4 on a rail and with extension, before I decide to keep it or return it. I do try to use any good lenses for my purposes, which are closer than farther. Some work well; many do not.
-
The first method is also the only one that will keep the perspective relationship camera-subject constant. Not easily accomplished with modern lenses, though, as they invariably include a focusing helicoid and very often also internal adjustments to the optics along the focusing range (CRC, IF, RF etc.).
Thus what one really needs is a lens head without any extras and capable of returning good optical performance across a wide range of optical magnifications. That would constitute a tall order for any lens. The 105/1.4 E features an electronically-controlled aperture and thus removing it from its focusing mount to make it a lens head, yet still have a workable aperture control is not simple.
The reason for some earlier comments was that it is not fair to blame the lens designers for aspects of its performance not being considered very important to the intended use of the lens. The 105E is a child of the AF age and one should really be enthusiastic it is acceptable to focus by hand instead of complaining about "too short focus throw". It might be possible to reduced any CA already low to even lower levels by adding more glass elements to the design, but the lens is already big and on the borderline of being suited for hand-held use. It also is optimised for portrait and studio work for which minute residual aberrations off the optical axis is of no consequence. If it is put on an extension tube its designated conjugate parameter domain is violated and accordingly, spherical and chromatic aberrations become more prominent. Again, it is not correct to take the designers to task for such behaviour as it is inherent to any optical system.
I'm stating the above as a general remark as many people tend to ignore such basic facts that extension tubes entail more than adding "air", it has immediate and destructive impact on the optical performance of the lens.
-
Maybe my question was not clear. I did not have in mind using a focus rail (your #3) but your #2 using the focus ring on the lens, which can be controlled electronicly as well.
-
Well, I don't care about auto-focus; it's nice for family snapshots.
I trust, this quote is valid yourself and not a general statement...
-
After shooting a second day with it, I started to get good results with the D810 and 105/1.4 now, with autofocus, even with moving subjects. I was so used to the D5's responsiveness that I had become sloppy and making an effort to hold the focus point steady caused a marked improvement. Also I refined my fine tune setting from -2 to -3 and all is good now, most images in focus at f/1.4. Mostly the difference is that with D5 even sloppy technique and cornermost focus points are fine, the newer system picks up focus so quickly even on faces.
I did notice an image with color fringing, it was a subject at a fairly close distance (well, closer than full body portrait), on the other hand there were some overexposed pixels which could have accentuated the problem.
-
I totally agree that anything (close-up lenses, teleconverters, extensions, etc.) cannot but degrade a lens. I live by this, which is not to say I don’t try to push the envelope regardless. I have found that adding the K-1 Ring, which is 5.8mm extension (Nikon’s smallest extension), on some lenses does very minimal image degradation. And, since many of the lenses I like the most are not for close-up work, I am getting pretty experienced in this by now.
Bjørn:
I remind you of something you said to me when I wrote to you:
“Like many things, experimenting may turn out to be useless, but I like to try all kinds of things.” And you responded:
“Now, that is an angle of approach I fully endorse.”
Just to put the question of extension to rest regarding the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 lens, here are some proofs of what Bjørn points out:
IMAGE 1
Here is the 105mm lens with 5.8mm of extension (K1 Ring), but using the focus ring of the lens at f/1.4. This shows me that the focus throw is too short, so that even turning the lens by hand very-carefully, the resulting artifacts are many and too difficult to fix. I tried to remove some artifacts, but gave up.
IMAGE2
Here is the 105mm lens with 5.8mm of extension (K1 Ring) plus being mounted on a focus rail at f/1.4, allowing smaller increments to be made. The result shows how important a longer focus throw is. Had they made the focus throw on the new lens longer, this would be possible. But since they made it for street or sports photography (short focus throw), unless you want to mount it on a rail, you can’t stack-focus well.
IMAGE3
And finally here is an image with the 105mm lens, where it was set to f/10, then removed from camera, thus fixing the aperture there, and then re-mounted on the K1 Ring creating a 9-layer stacked image, where each of the nine layers was focused at a particular part of the image I wanted in fine focus.
As you can see, Image-2 and Image-3 are “useable,” although they could use more retouching. It is not that I did not accept what some users here pointed out. I already knew that, but I like to personal get ahold of a lens and see for myself, whether I can get something out of it that is usable...for my particular work, so please note that. And to MFloyd (and others): These are not general comments on the lens, which I made clear several times. This blog was about close-up and focus-stacking with this lens, whether it was designed for it or not.
And to Alaun’s post about electronic focus:
Unfortunately, I own very few lenses that are not manual. This 105mm was a lens I took a chance on as far as what we are discussing here, but also bought it because I need an autofocus portrait/small-group lens for a project coming up. I have yet to see whether there is much focus-shift and just how much, etc.
I originally thought that this kind of inquiry post would interest those other focus-stacker/close-up photographers, but it caused too much hassle. Sorry about that.
-
I guess "150 mm" is a typo ?
And I'm using "Helicon Remote" for the focus stepping; and Ps for the proper stacking.
http://www.heliconsoft.com
-
"IMAGE 1
Here is the 105mm lens with 5.8mm of extension (K1 Ring), but using the focus ring of the lens at f/1.4. This shows me that the focus throw is too short, so that even turning the lens by hand very-carefully, the resulting artifacts are many and too difficult to fix. I tried to remove some artifacts, but gave up."
Ok, my proposal was to -instead of turning by hand- doing the turning by the electronics of the lens, but with the K1-ring, off course you loose this possibility. I think you would need one of those rings, which transmit the electronic signals (like the modified TC's from Erik).
Thank you for the detailed examples!
-
Is not the focus throw of most any zoom and most any IF lens dictated by the internal design of the lens? For example I would like a longer throw on my 25-50/4.0 AIS and a shorter throw on my 80-200/4.0 AIS Nikkors. I suspect changing the throw would be at the least a great complication of these lens designs.
Now what about AF lenses where manual focus is secondary to most photographers? Might it have been practical for the AF-S NIKKOR
105mm f/1.4E ED to have a longer throw? One might like it to but that doesn't mean it would be practical to accomplish. It would quite likely compromise other design factors.
I'll probably never even touch the 105/1.4E due to helping a paralyzed woman who was screwed over by a church and school of medicine I won't name but I can read reviews and dream.
Dave Hartman the Infidel
-
I don't see how implementing longer throw would be difficult. Gears are not a new invention. In most AF-S lenses the manual focus ring moves at a different angular speed than the distance scale inside, so gears are already likely being used, or some other mechanism which allows the rate to be different.
-
I would think that focus in AF-S lenses is done by cams but that's at best a guess. The cam might be shared with the silent wave motor. Maybe someone can post a link. I think there was a teardown of the 105/1.4E somewhere online.
Dave
-
I found the teardown at Lens Rentals and I remember complaints about gears but I looking at the photos on a smart phone which isn't conducive to my understanding of the lens' features.
Dave who needs suitable reading glasses
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/taking-apart-the-new-nikon-105mm-f1-4e-ed-af-s/
-
I have a 100mm Leica Elmarit-R Macro with a 720-degree focus throw, so of could it can be whatever we wish. The 105mm f/1.4 is, IMO, designed for street or sports, one-off photos. To stack without a long focus-throw means not enough photo layers can be squeezed in for the amount of turning the lens focus. So, I would have to put in on a focus rail.
I have tried to be clear, but I think I have said what I can. If anyone actually has this lens and does focus stacking, glad to hear from you.
And I pointed out that I don't have any lenses that I use for close-work that are not manual. They have no auto-focus, plus evenly electronically, you can't even-step around a sphere, etc. Spheres take more and shorter intervals, and so on.
-
I'm guessing but I doubt that the 100mm Leica Elmarit-R Macro is an AF or IF lens. I'll do a search and see what I can find.
I haven't done stacking yet but I'd like to try. I read these threads to learn. When I try my hand I'll start with Nikon PB-4 Bellow and a D800. My best guess is I'll prefer moving the camera while keeping the lens stationary, a method I probably learned by using a monorail view camera back in 1974. I don't Invision using any of my AF-S lenses.
Dave Hartman
-
I'm guessing but I doubt that the 100mm Leica Elmarit-R Macro is an AF or IF lens. I do a search and see what I can find.
I haven't done stacking yet but I'd like to try. I read these threads to learn. When I try my hand I'll start with Nikon PB-4 Bellow and a D800. My best guess is I'll prefer moving the camera while keeping the lens stationary. A method I probably learned by using a monorail view camera back in 1974. I don't envision using any of my AF-S lenses.
Dave Hartman
I never have used AF for stacking, and don't know anyone who does. I did some videos, years ago, on stacking, which are free and here, if they might help:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5xDr8mWUwrzi4bxY978O1DQykUrj-S2I
Plus lots of written articles here:
http://michaelerlewine.com/viewforum.php?f=236&sid=3f9c1bde37626db449cbeca7a51daabd
And free e-books here:
http://spiritgrooves.net/e-Books.aspx#Photography
-
Micheal, there are some tethering programs that let you move the AF motor in small increments (the individual steps of the stepper motors if I'm not mistaken) at one time. This could be used for stacking. I tried it once for a stack and would say that it is worth investigating further, but I don't have extensive experience of course.
It does not work very well with non-AF-S lenses, since the in-body motor is not as precise.
-
Micheal, there are some tethering programs that let you move the AF motor in small increments (the individual steps of the stepper motors if I'm not mistaken) at one time. This could be used for stacking. I tried it once for a stack and would say that it is worth investigating further, but I don't have extensive experience of course.
It does not work very well with non-AF-S lenses, since the in-body motor is not as precise.
You lost me there. Lenses like the Zeiss Otus on the Nikon D810 are manual. I am not aware of any way to make them internally move focus without turning them by hand. Do you have some information that I am unaware of? I can't imagine it.
-
Sorry, I was talking about the 105/1.4 and similar AF-S lenses. You were commenting that the focus throw is rather short, which is true of most AF-S lenses. But the stepper motor can move the lens elements in very small increments. Controlling that stepper motor via computer, tablet or smartphone would make the lenses more suitable to stacking applications.
-
I will not further reply, as my comments are left unanswered. This is the last one: you take your 105mm f/1.4 (which has a stepper motor used for AF); you thether the attached body to a program which allows to drive the stepper motor in minute steps - 100 times more precise than you can achieve manually -. And voilà. Now choosing the aforementioned lens for macro ? Its your choice, but why not ?
-
The 105/1.4 has an SWM (some version of it on the side of the lens with gears), not a stepper motor, if I'm not mistaken. Nikon lenses which use stepper motors are designated AF-P.
-
I never have used AF for stacking, and don't know anyone who does. I did some videos, years ago, on stacking, which are free and here, if they might help...
Thank You!
-
The 105/1.4 has an SWM (some version of it on the side of the lens with gears), not a stepper motor, if I'm not mistaken. Nikon lenses which use stepper motors are designated AF-P.
Stepper motor might be incorrect. But the point remains that the motor can be controlled quite precisely.
-
Yes. Stepper motor might not be the correct term. But simsurace got my point.
-
Testing various lenses not designed for close-up makes sense to me as some work out well and some don't. You won't know unless you try.
I also test various extension tubes as sometimes the air inside is good and sometimes it's not. I remember trying an M tube behind a 105/2.5 Nikkor-P*C. I didn't care for the results.
Dave
-
The motors used in the latest AF-P Nikkors and Canon STM lenses should be of a stepping type?
-
I love the third of you experimental results in reply #21
As the 105E had a sweet spot at f/5.6 I would give it a try there too
-
just got back from a Nikon seminar and listening to the lens designer's thought while designing the lens answers lots of questions as to why it was built like that and the design choices that he made to give the images a "unique" look :o :o :o
he basically just made a larger version of the 58/1.4S ::)
this lens focuses close for a 105mm.
-
I agree, using the build in SWM to do the incremental steps is the best option for any IF CRC type lens.
An alternative would be to mount a large focus ring, like a big disc with graduations on the outside of the MF focus ring to have more control of the angular rotation.
The Nikkor 105mm 1.4 E uses a small SWM type motor with a gearbox, not a ring-type SWM or stepper motor. And yes there are a gearing between the focus ring and the barrel with the focus scale, so you have better MF control than without this gearing.
I also completely agree with Bjørn, to blame the designers for the design choices for this lens, is a misunderstanding.
-
I actually appreciate the 105/1.4E and 58/1.4G more after sitting through the seminar. :o :o :o
he has his reasons why he made it that way. it is going back to the roots of Nikkor back in the olden days where primes were designed for specific use and not like what we have since the 2000s wherein a lens has to excel in so many things and become a master of non. it will top any chart but will look clinical.
I am liking how these groups of optical engineers think ::) it seems that the lens division is divided into teams with different philosophy driving each team, at least this is how my impression is after listening to how they work.
-
this lens focuses close for a 105mm.
It focuses to 1m, same as the AIS 105/2.5, AIS 105/1.8, and less than the 105DC (0.9m). All get to about 1:7.7 magnification at close range, which is fine for most purposes, although getting a little closer is always useful. Still a good effort for a f/1.4 lens.
-
I see! I swear it feels like that :o :o :o
been shooting too many vintage lenses lately (pre-1960).