NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on June 01, 2021, 14:53:05
-
:o :o :o
-
That 105mm looks rather big.
-
Yes they are sort of large, but do follow the trend of the S line lenses for Nikon Z.
Interesting MC naming and the 50 is not S line apparently,,,
-
Bring them on -- we have been waiting long time for these. Hopefully, Nikon will deliver something far superior to the AFS 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor VR!!
-
i suppose they have to be so long in order to accommodate the LONG helicoids :o :o :o
-
pricing is out by the way :o :o :o
-
pricing is out by the way :o :o :o
is it priced by the cc?
-
is it priced by the cc?
not sure. around $1,000 for the 105 and $700 for the other one :o :o :o
-
MC = Micro?
The 105 looks like it has inner focusing. It looks to be about the same size as the AFS 105 micro with FTZ adaptor attached.
On the 50 there is a gap around the front ring which suggests it extends when focusing close.
-
That price would be reasonable. I am assembling a kit for a Z6 and need a telephoto partner for the 35mm. The choice is between the 85mm and this 105mm. The slight extra reach would be nice, as would the ability to focus more closely. Size is a concern, however. I will know if it is too big when I see it ;)
-
the 50/2.8 better be IF since the older 60/2.8G is :o :o :o
-
well, the press release mentions that the 50/2.8 will have informative display like reproduction ratio etc but there are no LCD's...where will they be shown? in-cam? if not then it's at the barrel...no IF, booooo :o :o :o (not cheap)
-
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_mc_50mm_f28/sample.html
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_mc_105mm_f28_vr_s/sample.html
the photos look beautiful (of course, its a promotion) ::)
damn, so many elements and the designs are unrecognizable :o :o :o
the 50/2.8 @ f/22 looks stunning but i am interested to see if the 105/2.8 is any better since the last version sucks...definitely 2-stops behind the AFD when it came to diffraction. i will never use that beyond f/11
-
(https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_mc_50mm_f28/img/features01/pic_23.jpg)
well, this is certainly less than ideal... but if that helps with the image quality then so be it, i guess? :o :o :o
-
well, this is certainly less than ideal... but if that helps with the image quality then so be it, i guess? :o :o :o
Reminds me of the ugly duckling; the first AF Micro 55mm Trumpet version :o :o :o
Looks like it does have an "informatory display" ;D ;D ;D
-
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_mc_50mm_f28/sample.html (https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_mc_50mm_f28/sample.html)
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_mc_105mm_f28_vr_s/sample.html (https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_mc_105mm_f28_vr_s/sample.html)
the photos look beautiful (of course, its a promotion) ::)
damn, so many elements and the designs are unrecognizable :o :o :o
the 50/2.8 @ f/22 looks stunning but i am interested to see if the 105/2.8 is any better since the last version sucks...definitely 2-stops behind the AFD when it came to diffraction. i will never use that beyond f/11
The image rendering of the 105mm looks very similar to Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125mm - specially the front oof areas and how tones blend
-
well, the press release mentions that the 50/2.8 will have informative display like reproduction ratio etc but there are no LCD's...where will they be shown? in-cam? if not then it's at the barrel...no IF, booooo :o :o :o (not cheap)
The barrel extends and shows markings for reproduction ratio etc.
I can see this as a good compromise for making the lens more compact when focused at longer distances, but an internal focusing lens would probably be more rugged, or at least give that impression. No nano coating in the 50 MC so in two ways it seems a downgrade from the AF-S Micro 60mm (which is my favorite). However dpr samples show quite round out of focus highlights so maybe there is reduced cat's eyes (would need to test with similar subject and conditions to be sure).
I can see that in several Z lenses Nikon have gone for collapsing designs; this makes some sense if the objective is to make the kit as compact to pack for travel as possible. However, internal focusing and internal zooming lenses are enjoyable to use and at least for me they are easier to be confident about.
Nice to read that the 105 has little focus breathing according to Nikon's web page.
-
not sure. around $1,000 for the 105 and $700 for the other one :o :o :o
Very affordable price point for the 105mm IMHO
-
Reminds me of the ugly duckling; the first AF Micro 55mm Trumpet version :o :o :o
Looks like it does have an "informatory display" ;D ;D ;D
hey, i love that lens ::)
the printed information just made this look cheap...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RJh7VZrjA4
here's a video :o :o :o
-
do note that the 50/2.8 is not an S line so the slight erection may be forgiven but at that price nikon is asking for a lot...$800 here in japan :o :o :o
and....
you will have to buy the hood separately!
-
At last a Micro-Nikkor with really good control of chromatic aberrations? That would be a first.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKSezJxbXPo
from adorama, not even 3min published :o :o :o
from BH (pre-order):
$646.95
$996.95
-
I'll pre-order the 105. RRP was quite acceptable, for once.
I do hope Nikon can put production into proper gear so as to deliver the new lenses without too much delay.
-
I'll pre-order the 105. RRP was quite acceptable, for once.
I do hope Nikon can put production into proper gear so as to deliver the new lenses without too much delay.
i'd pre order the 50/2.8 but they wont ship to japan :o :o :o
i will buy a Zeiss flektogon instead ::)
-
I buy from a national dealer ....
-
why not buy the 50/2.8??? :o :o :o
i may just wait for the rebates ::)
-
No online pre-orders or EU price available here in Denmark yet - Half the price of an APO Lanthar- I'll for sure try it out.
I see some focus breathing quite clearly from Ricci's video
-
No online pre-orders or EU price available here in Denmark yet - Half the price of an APO Lanthar- I'll for sure try it out.
I see some focus breathing quite clearly from Ricci's video
thats going to suck when focus stacking. i read in the official site somewhere that mentioned something that will help with focus stacking, i think its about the STM or something else ::)
i am more excited with the 50/2.8 but i will not buy that at the current price. besides, i already have more than 30+ micro-nikkors of the same class :o :o :o
-
I see some focus breathing quite clearly from Ricci's video
True, I was merely repeating what Nikon says on their web page. ;-) In Ricci's video in the longer distance range there seems to be a lot of picture angle change as the focus distance changes, but is it there also in the close-up / macro range?
On Nikon's page
https://www.nikon.co.uk/en_GB/product/nikkor-z-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/fx/single-focal-length/nikkor-z-mc-105mm-f-2-8-vr-s
In the section on macro videos: "Macro video Benefit from quiet AF and smooth, stable aperture control. Focus breathing is all but eliminated so you can shift focus without affecting the shot's angle of view."
-
What is the focus throw on each of these lenses? How APO are they? So, the 50mmis not an “S” lens? Are there any MTF charts available yet?
Are these focus-by-wire or traditional focusing?
-
What is the focus throw on each of these lenses? How APO are they? So, the 50mmis not an “S” lens? Are there any MTF charts available yet?
MTF chart shown for the 105 mm:
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_mc105mmf28_vr_s/spec.htm
and for the 50 mm:
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_mc50mmf28/spec.htm
Pretty dramatic improvement in detail shown in the Ricci video for the 105 mm as well as the Nikon MTF chart.
However, it appears the 50 mm is not quite as good MTF-wise in the outer parts of the frame than the 60 mm AF-S. There is also astigmatism. Although one should note here that Nikon MTFs are for infinity focus, it may be a different situation in the close-up range. I think maybe Nikon thought about DX Z users when designing the new 50.
I think this is quite smart from Nikon as a lot of the customer drive towards mirrorless was to get more compact and lighter weight kit, and offering lenses that conform to this is essential - having a compact body like the Z50 is pointless if the lenses available make it large or out of balance. The 28 mm, 40 mm and 50 mm should all be good fits for compact DX and FX camera bodies and something fun to walk around with. The 16-50 mm DX is very compact and highly reviewed for a lens of its class but the aperture is limiting its use.
-
Prices in Norway:
Japanphoto.no (https://www.japanphoto.no/objektiv/objektiv/nikon-fatning?pageView=grid&beginIndex=0&facetName_1=Makro&facetName_2=Nikon&facetName_3=Nikon+Z&facet_1=ads_f8_ntk_cs%253A%2522Makro%2522&facet_2=ads_f1_ntk_cs%253A%2522Nikon%2522&fromPage=catalogEntryList&facet_3=ads_f_40501_ntk_cs%253A%2522Nikon%2BZ%2522#productListing)
- MC 105, 11990,-
- MC 50, 7790,-
Not bad at all, I will go for the 105. Hopefully it will be available soon.
-
Still like to know what kind of focus does it have, the focus-by-wire or standard focus?
The MTF chart, at least for the 105mm looks really good.
-
105mm Micro Nikkor S is fly by wire focus motors, at least two motors.
-
the focus mechanism is impressive, this is something no repairer could successfully overhaul without special equipment :o :o :o
-
The 105 Micro just became available for pre-order at my usual dealer's and now there should be one for me as soon as the lens arrives to Norway.
-
The 105 Micro just became available for pre-order at my usual dealer's and now there should be one for me as soon as the lens arrives to Norway.
do you know when? :o :o :o
-
"...Optimized for macro and close-up works...". Any info about the optical formula? 16 elements, but is there any floating group to compensate for infinity? Older 105 is very poor in this respect, so what about the new one? THX, LZ.
-
I have ordered both the 50mm and the 105mm from B&H, where I can always send it back if it is not "special" enough.
-
"...Optimized for macro and close-up works...". Any info about the optical formula? 16 elements, but is there any floating group to compensate for infinity? Older 105 is very poor in this respect, so what about the new one? THX, LZ.
The Nikon MTF's have been calculated for infinity so it should perform excellently also at long distances judging from the published curves.
-
The Nikon MTF's have been calculated for infinity so it should perform excellently also at long distances judging from the published curves.
Thank you, Ilkka! I hope so! LZ
-
do you know when? :o :o :o
From 24 June according to Nikon Europe. We'll see about that, though.
-
I am not sure where Photography Life obtained their figures but they report the following dimensions.
50mm f/2.8: 3 inches wide by 2.6 inches long, 260 g.
105mm f/2.8: 3.4 inches wide by 5.6 inches long, 630 g.
-
Yes, interesting price of Eur 1.099 for the 105
-
Someone needs to tell Nikon that the sub-units for feet are inches and that there are 12 of them per foot not tenths or hundreths. IMHO, it would have been better to show the working distance in mm on the end (nose) of the new 50 MC. This new lens reminds me of the Canon 50 compact macro for the EF mount which I have - a sharp lens with a "stone-age" AF motor. Using it for underwater photography it cannot be configured to use both AF and MF on a single scuba dive, it is one or the other.
-
I'll pre-order the 105. RRP was quite acceptable, for once.
I do hope Nikon can put production into proper gear so as to deliver the new lenses without too much delay.
Probably not due to the rampant "printing" of digital green backs.
Dave
-
I got my order in for the two Z Macros early enough that I hope to get one. Slightly off-topic, but another fairly new lens is the Nikon Z 70-200, here coupled with the TC-1.4 Z and an 11mm Meike extension ring. I am gearing up for some autofocus (mostly insect) shots and it looks to me that this combination will work and be up to what I need to get from a close up, and I am not even going close-in for this shot. I was waiting to order the TC-1.4 and already had the extensions, but John Koener showed me what he is doing with this combination for butterfly shots, so I wanted to get on with ordering the TC and so far am very happy with it. I feel the Nikkor Z 20-200mm f/2.8 is an amazing lens with a style all its own, IMO.
-
The Z 105 MC looks like a lovely beast ;) I still wished they'd come out sooner rather than later with a 85mm 1.4 equivalent, which surely will be on the S line up and surely 1.2 as that seems on the mirrorless lenses to have become what replaced the AF Nikkors 1.4 line-up. That and a Z "S" Nikkor 105 1.8 portrait lens.
-
The Z 105 MC looks like a lovely beast ;) I still wished they'd come out sooner rather than later with a 85mm 1.4 equivalent, which surely will be on the S line up and surely 1.2 as that seems on the mirrorless lenses to have become what replaced the AF Nikkors 1.4 line-up. That and a Z "S" Nikkor 105 1.8 portrait lens.
The 85mm f/1.8 does a lot of what the 1.4 does at a fraction of the cost and a moderate reduction in weight. I can certainly understand why it was prioritized over a 1.2 which is an expensive niche to scratch.
-
while the new 105 is priced reasonably specially considering the engineering that went into it, i do not see why the new 50 should cost that much, i think it is $150 more expensive than it should be :o :o :o theres no display window, is not an S lens, has printed scales instead and less parts, etc. of course, less glass and materials used. ::) does anybody feel the same too?
-
while the new 105 is priced reasonably specially considering the engineering that went into it, i do not see why the new 50 should cost that much, i think it is $150 more expensive than it should be :o :o :o theres no display window, is not an S lens, has printed scales instead and less parts, etc. of course, less glass and materials used. ::) does anybody feel the same too?
I had those same thoughts. For me it is all about the proof of the pudding. If it is sharp in the center and wide open, a decent focus throw, and no significant fringing, I will like it because it is macro and wide...also light and smallish. And it is autofocus.
-
I had those same thoughts. For me it is all about the proof of the pudding. If it is sharp in the center and wide open, a decent focus throw, and no significant fringing, I will like it because it is macro and wide...also light and smallish. And it is autofocus.
the sample photos look awesome (as they should, of course!), corners look nice, too.
i am skeptical about its focus as i suspect that its focus by wire :o :o :o
looks like the price here is $200 higher for both lenses! i will skip
-
Oops! Wrong discussion.
Well to post something relevant I can say I wish there were an F-Bayonet 105mm Micro-Nikkor to replace the one I own now and I'm a bit jealous. I think I'd like a Z7 II but can't see myself affording one.
Dave
-
The 105 Micro just became available for pre-order at my usual dealer's and now there should be one for me as soon as the lens arrives to Norway.
I did also pre-order the lens - Looking forward to test it 8)
-
for the price, unfortunately only the 105 seems worth it. nikon has to justify the price of the 50 :o :o :o
-
for the price, unfortunately only the 105 seems worth it. nikon has to justify the price of the 50 :o :o :o
I think it's a good thing if one doesn't feel compelled to buy something, for the planet's environment and for our personal finances. ;-)
Generally speaking, 50-60mm Micro-Nikkors have been popular and I think the 50 mm MC lens will sell itself (electromagnetic aperture, stepper motors, and more compact with no need for an adapter). The pricing is similar to the existing 60 mm lens. I do not need the 50, as my current 45 mm and 60 mm are excellent and I do not generally use these focal lengths for tight close-ups (for 1:2 - 1:1 I generally need more working distance).
The 105 mm MC, however, is very appealing.
-
I already have more than a handful of the 55/60mm Micro-Nikkors. Amongst them several copies of the AFD 60mm f/2.8, which for me is indispensable for close-ups on my Multiphot stand *because* of its short working distance. I always use it with manual focusing. Absolutely no need for a fly-by-wire AF lens for the Z format.
Apart from the above-mentioned and very specific use, I much prefer longer focal lengths for close-up work. So the new 105 Z will fit straight into my usual routines.
-
It is possible to adjust (by the mothership) a fly by wire mamual focus to behave like a normal helicoidal? To get a linear and consistent experience? Maybe even be able to choose long or short throw, direction of the rotation and so on?
-
It is possible to adjust (by the mothership) a fly by wire mamual focus to behave like a normal helicoidal? To get a linear and consistent experience? Maybe even be able to choose long or short throw, direction of the rotation and so on?
Not sure what this is saying. Can anyone explain please?
-
If it is possible for a fly by wire focus lens to behave like one with helicoid for manual focusing.
I hope this is more clear
-
If it is possible for a fly by wire focus lens to behave like one with helicoid for manual focusing.
I hope this is more clear
You left the "IF" out in the first one, which made me think there is some way it is possible, when I know there is not. LOL.
-
At least some Fuji bodies allow the choice between a linear response, like the manual lenses of old, and a response which depends on the speed one turns the ring. It would be nice if Nikon gave us something like that. It should be possible to do in firmware.
-
Not sure what this is saying. Can anyone explain please?
The Z lenses (apart from the manual focus Noct) have accelerated manual focusing where if you move the ring slowly, the focus moves very slowly and if you move it faster, the relationship between the turn of the ring and the actual focus distance change changes so that the focus changes faster. It's a bit like accelerated mouse function where the position of the mouse on the pad or desk is not representative of where the cursor is, as faster movements move the cursor at higher relative speeds.
Some people (including myself) would like a custom function in the camera which would turn off this kind of acceleration so that the ring position and focus position would be mapped to each other in a rigorous and reproducible way. Sony have implemented this option when using some of their newer lenses.
-
The Z lenses (apart from the manual focus Noct) have accelerated manual focusing where if you move the ring slowly, the focus moves very slowly and if you move it faster, the relationship between the turn of the ring and the actual focus distance change changes so that the focus changes faster. It's a bit like accelerated mouse function where the position of the mouse on the pad or desk is not representative of where the cursor is, as faster movements move the cursor at higher relative speeds.
Some people (including myself) would like a custom function in the camera which would turn off this kind of acceleration so that the ring position and focus position would be mapped to each other in a rigorous and reproducible way. Sony have implemented this option when using some of their newer lenses.
That's my question and even further, with no physical constrains, if it is possible to offer lineal, accelerated, short throw, double or triple throw for precision, etc...
-
That's my question and even further, with no physical constrains, if it is possible to offer lineal, accelerated, short throw, double or triple throw for precision, etc...
In theory it's a matter of programming but only Nikon know whether they implemented the control of the focusing in such a way that these options can be provided in the future via firmware updates. Currently these options are not available.
-
Thank you
-
So there is still some chance to get a Micro-Nikkor that is stellar (something in the CV 125 mm direction) and more than decent and not just something similar like the F-mount 105 mm VR is. (Well there are more ED elements and an aspheric element). If so the price is rather low. Sample images appear to show that there is a very good bokeh, we still dont know about chromatic aberration behavior.
Must shine on this inner values because Canon announced a mirrorless 100 mm Macro lens with 1,4:1 magnification ratio and an extra ring for modifying spheric aberration so and gives the impressions that their mirrorless lens programm is more innovative and more surprising than the Nikon Z roadmap. Nikon could have done some Macro DC lens as well despite just disconinuing their two DC screwdriver lenses.
-
I agree, a DC feature would have been nice, however I must say that the DC ring was of very limited use/effect when the lens is used wide open or close to, on the 105mm AF-D f/2
Considering it's half the price of a used CV APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 and build quality is probably much much higher, it will be very interesting to see how it fares.
-
Not personally excited about these two. They'd need to be optically on a new level to what is currently available to peak my interest, so we'll see. Otherwise 99% of my macro work is manual everything anyways and there are so many great options for little money. I'm currently using my Asahi Pentax Takumar 1:1 50mm f/4 with the Z6.
-
Not personally excited about these two. They'd need to be optically on a new level to what is currently available to peak my interest, so we'll see. Otherwise 99% of my macro work is manual everything anyways and there are so many great options for little money. I'm currently using my Asahi Pentax Takumar 1:1 50mm f/4 with the Z6.
I understand what you are saying here. I have a lot of macro lenses, but I don't have any that have autofocus that I will use. I have the older Nikkor 105 VR macro, but it is not corrected well enough for me. THe MTF for the 105 Z Macro look well enough corrected, so we will see. As mentioned, I would like ONE lenses that is AF that has the quality of say the CV125.
-
I agree, a DC feature would have been nice, however I must say that the DC ring was of very limited use/effect when the lens is used wide open or close to, on the 105mm AF-D f/2
Considering it's half the price of a used CV APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 and build quality is probably much much higher, it will be very interesting to see how it fares.
@Erik: I would not overestimate this DC feature, the 200/2 is better bokeh-wise than the two DC lenses, just wanted to point out some things that are influential on what people think about a specificbrand
I would prefer to pay the double price and get a superior lens. On the other hand the new Z Micro Nikkor is in the same price range the CV APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 was, when it was still offered new.
I am using the CV125 and it is on a level on its own (esp Bokeh, apochromatic correction and sharpness) and it still makes me very excited.
Nevertheless i would love to have a Z-lens that is as good or even better, has improved build quality AND Autofocus
Over long years I was convinced that autofocus is not needed at all for macro-lenses until I started to discover the field of fast action closeups of fast moving subjects like insects and my eyesight did not get better either.
-
Over long years I was convinced that autofocus is not needed at all for macro-lenses until I started to discover the field of fast action closeups of fast moving subjects like insects and my eyesight did not get better either.
AF-S and VR increase my odds with the current AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Micro-Nikkor. I do not like that I have to use Axial color aberration correction on every photograph taken with this lens. I don't like the size, the bulk of the lens. It's what I have. VR is useful for close-up when you can't use a tripod.
For candid portraits I'd like a AF-S 105/1.8G or E IF-ED but this will never happen. I hope the new 105mm micro in Z mount will be better corrected for color aberrations.
Dave
-
Completely agree that the 200mm AF-S f/2 is superior to DC, it's just so large and heavy,,,
Up close the CV APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 does show CA, this we will see if the new Micro-Nikkor can outperform.
Comparison to the 85mm f/1.8 S-line will be interesting since they are so close in focal length. So far CA has been very suppressed for this lens on the Z7.
The other big question is how well is the focus by wire implemented; I guess it depends on the case at hand, light etc. we will see ;)
BTW I'll make sure also to test the new Micro-Nikkor 105mm in Infrared also
-
The new 105 looks very promising regarding color correction with metal objects. That was always a bit of an issue with all micro lenses I had. But I wonder if anyone around here has tried the Voigtlander 110 for Sony E on the Nikon Z? How does it stack up against the CV 125?
-
The new 105 looks very promising regarding color correction with metal objects. That was always a bit of an issue with all micro lenses I had. But I wonder if anyone around here has tried the Voigtlander 110 for Sony E on the Nikon Z? How does it stack up against the CV 125?
I have the 110 Voigtlander for Sony with an adapter and it is nice enough, yet I like the 65mm Voigtlander better and if fact I'm not using either of them all that much. The CV125 is still the walkaround macro lens to measure against, IMO.I am hoping the new Nikon 105 s will be the one.
-
Thanks Michael. Do you find the 125 and 110 to have similar rendering? Right now the new Nikon Z and the CV 110 seem to be about the same price. So besides the AF, I wonder if one of them will come out clearly on top. Let's wait and see.
-
Thanks Michael. Do you find the 125 and 110 to have similar rendering? Right now the new Nikon Z and the CV 110 seem to be about the same price. So besides the AF, I wonder if one of them will come out clearly on top. Let's wait and see.
The CV125 is one of the great macro lenses, IMO. I would wait to see how the new Z Macro 105mm is like. It may do it all.
-
There is a small review (video) at Nikon Rumors. Also MTF curves are shown and compared with the old 105 VR.
The MTF for the new S-version looks quite good and the review shows that CA is good controlled and VR works well.
-
There is a small review (video) at Nikon Rumors. Also MTF curves are shown and compared with the old 105 VR.
The MTF for the new S-version looks quite good and the review shows that CA is good controlled and VR works well.
My guess is that this new Z macro 105 s is going to be a real winner. They would be crazy to do otherwise, after we have waited up to now for them to produce one.
-
Yes, it is tempting to get it even I don't spend enough time on taking pictures to justify it.
A shame I have the current 105 VR. Guess price will drop a lot. I find it ok for "non-macro" general photography.
-
The 105 has more impressive MTF curves than the 50?
https://photographylife.com/news/nikon-z-50mm-105mm-macro-announcement (https://photographylife.com/news/nikon-z-50mm-105mm-macro-announcement)
....even that image quality can't be judged just by looking at MTF's.....but for a high resolution macro you expect nice straight MTF's?
-
For fun I attached my 105/2.8 VR to my Z50 and shot a metal screw to get some metallic reflections to force some CA from the lens.
This is the reason I don't like the lens (this purple / green CA)......and a reason to get the new one.
Then I put on a Minolta scanner lens and took a similar image (flash not able to illuminate the right side of screw).....but you probably get the idea....
Image free from CA.....and with all CA-corrections switched off.
I never understood the 105/2.8 VR......why it was designed that way...?
It was just quick hand hold direct flash shots.....for demonstration.....so technical poor.....but quick....
-
The CV125 is one of the great macro lenses, IMO. I would wait to see how the new Z Macro 105mm is like. It may do it all.
Yes, perhaps. But I was wondering whether you have found the CV125 to have similar rendering as the Voigtlander 110mm for Sony?
-
Yes, perhaps. But I was wondering whether you have found the CV125 to have similar rendering as the Voigtlander 110mm for Sony?
This is very subjective. I like both the 110 and the 65 Voigtlander, but the CV125 has a style and IQ all its own, IMO. I have dozens of macro lenses, and the CV125 is the best all-around macro lens for me, although I have sharper, better corrected, longer throw, etc. and etc., but none with all the good qualities that the CV125 has. The new Nikon 105mm Z s lens may do it all too and better, but we will see.
-
I never understood the 105/2.8 VR......why it was designed that way...?
What the 105 VR brought with it was very pleasing bokeh for a macro lens (I never felt any of the AF D Micro-Nikkors were this nice, sometimes they produce rough lines in backgrounds which the 105 VR does not), and also the focusing was an improvement over the older AF versions (both manual and autofocus) and the color rendition is nice. But yes, there are aberrations and one can never really see the kind of sharpness at 1:1 that one might have expected. However, for close-ups with a bit less magnification (say 1:3) I have obtained results that are sharp and pleasing. It depends on what one's needs are, what is the best lens. The 105 VR is clearly not a lens optimized for aberration-free imaging at 1:1. But e.g. for a portrait with only a part of the face visible, it does a nice job.
I ended up using 85 PC-E for most close-ups and 200 AF D Micro for things requiring greater working distance or magnification between 1:2 and 1:1. My 105 VR has not been used all that much. However, it's not a bad lens, it's just not the right lens for 1:1 work or technical reproduction. :-)
Sometimes in interviews Nikon note the need for lens designers to consider other things in addition to MTF but also to make them "playful". I sometimes wonder what they mean, but there is this quality of a lens to somehow titillate the viewer, creating something that is not a technical 2D copy of the subject but an artistic thing of its own. Quite a few Nikkors produce images which are characteristic of not only the subject but the lens and create something that clearly didn't exist outside of the photograph. These include colour, flare, mood, feeling. I think the 105 VR tries to do this, and the 60 AF-S is more successful and the latter is one of my favorite lenses. However, users' requirements and preferences in lenses change and today, with the high-resolution sensors available, the objectives of lens designers are again different, and Nikon too produce lenses that resolve very fine detail rather than focus on creating mood. The two are not mutually exclusive but it still seems that it is not sufficient to just correct aberrations if a 3D subject is to be photographed in varying lighting conditions.
An interesting example is the 14-24/2.8 F-mount lens; it creates ghosts in a prolific manner with a bright light source placed just outside or even within the frame. My 20mm f/1.8G produces much less ghosting (instead of a series of 10 or so colorful ghosts like with the zoom, there might be one ghost that is hard to locate). However, there is something about the 14-24's images that create a luminous, airy feeling in interior images that is very pleasing to me, and seems to be missing in images from the 20 mm. I sold the zoom because I was mostly using it on travels and I realized I didn't want to carry such a heavy lens around for the not so usual superwide angle shots, and the 20 is such a tiny and lightweight lens that produces a technically better image, and is more consistent autofocuser, but in retrospect the zoom is a lens that has a special quality and something that cannot be solely defined by parameters that characterise its ability to reproduce detail. I guess what I'm trying to say that a lens that does well in technical lens tests or works well for reproducing detail might fail in some circumstances to create aesthetically pleasing images of real-world subjects whereas a lens that has what might be characterized as "flaws" may be able to succeed in some tasks that require the creation of a certain feeling rather than merely reproducing a subject.
-
My understanding was that the LoCA was, at least for a certain period in history, associated with design parameters for good Bokeh. From memory, I believe that the Nikon f/1.4 lenses up until the 28E and 105E had quite a bit of LoCA. The 85mm f/1.4 AF-D is still IMO a landmark lens for its rendition of the transition to out-of-focus, but in the wrong circumstances it shows quite hideous LoCA, so it needs to be used judiciously. For me the Zeiss 135mm APO Sonnar is a benchmark in combining minimal LoCA with a pleasing background blur, with a slight tendency towards a clinical rendition and a noticeably more abrupt transition than e.g. the 85/1.4 I just mentioned. The 60mm AF-S micro is in my experience very nice as well in both background rendering and quite contained LoCA and handles shiny metal quite competently. It would be nice to have something like that in the 105mm focal length.
-
The 105mm AF-S VR f/2.8 is an IF and non-extending lens design that is a huge advantage when using A flash mounted on the lens front filter threads. Yes it also has a lot of focus breathing, loss of focal length when focusing.
The 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor Ais had a front CRC group that would suffer from wear for use of lens mounted flash, also mounting mounting and removing filters put stress on the front of that lens.
-
On a side note I agree on the description of the 14-24mm AF-S f/2.8 that I have reacquired for the same reasons, wonderful image quality if you take great care for the sun or other strong lights at the image edge! Extremly nice in IR and on a Z camera you can easily see the flare, that is not always the case shooting on DSLR :o 8)
-
I agree the 105/2.8 VR has a very nice bokeh when used as general purpose mid-tele.
It will probably be my use for it and I should explore this more. Then the AF-switch will be set to 0.5m to infinity (instead of "full").
I noticed that the new 105 has a AF setting only for close-ups. This difference may indicate what the two lenses are best suited for.....
I remember reviews that was quite positive about the lens when it was tested at infinity. The built quality is nice. I am sure fine portraits can be made with this lens.
-
The 105mm AF-S VR f/2.8 is an IF and non-extending lens design that is a huge advantage when using A flash mounted on the lens front filter threads. Yes it also has a lot of focus breathing, loss of focal length when focusing.
I have noticed that the term "focus breathing" is used to describe two different things. For stills photography, focus breathing generally refers to the change in focal length of the lens when focusing. In many lenses this shows as focal length reduction at close range, and is especially noticeable in some lenses such as the AFS 105VR micro, AFS 70-200 VR, and many super-zooms. The result is that the image magnification at close range is less, and field of view is wider, than a comparable lens without focus breathing.
For videographers, "focus breathing" refers to the change in image magnification when focusing. The ideal lens is one that keeps objects in the frame the same size when focusing from near to far. If a unit-focusing lens is used, the objects in the frame (whether in focus or not) become enlarged and the field of view is reduced. To counter this, I guess most lenses for video are designed so the focal length reduces when focusing closer, so the field of view and image magnification is constant. In other words, using "focus breathing" to fix "focus breathing" :o :)
As for the AFS 105 VR micro, it ultimately has similar focal length reduction as the older AF 105 micro - at 1:1 both focus to 0.314m with a focal length of about 75mm. The difference is that the AF micro loses focal length more or less constantly from infinity to 1:1, while the AFS has no focal length reduction at medium-far distances and then has more dramatic loss at close range. See: http://www.pierretoscani.com/focale.html#focale37Animation
The new Z 105 micro focuses to 0.29m at 1:1, which is 24mm (nearly 1 inch) shorter than the older 105 micros. This suggests it has even more focal length reduction at close range (even though the optical design is broadly similar to the AFS 105 VR micro). It's possible the way it loses focal length as been adjusted to reduce focus breathing (the video kind) since this is a greater design priority in modern Nikkors, leading to a greater overall loss of focal length and reduced focus distance.
-
It seems some expensive cinema lenses compensate for focus breathing by implementing a small zoom in their primes.
It is demonstrated here about 6 min. in the video. Nice lens....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1n2DR6H7mk&t=915s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1n2DR6H7mk&t=915s)
-
In other words, using "focus breathing" to fix "focus breathing" :o :)
I'm getting confused here! If I understand correctly a classic unit focusing lens has a longer as used focal length rear focus distance and therefore a narrower field of view as it focuses closer, e.g. a 105/4.0 Micro-Nikkor has a focal length of 105mm at infinity but a focal length rear focus distance of 210mm as used when focusing to 1:1 (helical plus PN-11). ???
It would seem that a little focus breathing is good, no focus breathing is bad and much focus breathing is really, really bad. Am I close?
Dave
I hope "rear focus distance" is the term I stumbled to find. I'm not sure the paragraph above makes any sense at this point.
-
The focal length of unit-focusing lenses such as the 105/4 micro does not change when focusing. The focal length remains at 105mm whether at infinity, or 1:1 (with PN-11) or any other distance. The reason the angle of view gets narrower when focusing closer is that the optical center of the lens gets further from the image plane. At infinity (no extension) it is 105mm from the image plane. At 1:1 the distance increases to 210mm (105mm of the lens itself, plus 105mm extension). That's where the 210mm comes from. Since the lens is further away from the sensor, the angle of view is narrower.
The point I was making is that the term "focus breathing" is used to describe two different things (which is confusing!) For still photography, when a lens focal length changes drastically when focusing, it is known as focus breathing. It usually shows as a reduction in focal length when focusing close, which means the framing is wider and the magnification is less than expected. For example, compare the 28-300 zoom @300m at close range, compared to a 300mm prime.
Video photographers usually want the framing and subject size to stay constant when focusing. If the framing expands or shrinks that is also known as focus breathing. This effect is not usually of concern in still photography. If a unit-focusing lens is used for video, the framing will change as explained above. To counter this, the lens focal length needs to change to compensate. So to fix focus breathing (video) you need a lens with focus breathing (stills)
It would be useful if we used different terms for these effects since they are quite separate...
-
The focal length of unit-focusing lenses such as the 105/4 micro does not change when focusing. The focal length remains at 105mm whether at infinity, or 1:1 (with PN-11) or any other distance. The reason the angle of view gets narrower when focusing closer is that the optical center of the lens gets further from the image plane. At infinity (no extension) it is 105mm from the image plane. At 1:1 the distance increases to 210mm (105mm of the lens itself, plus 105mm extension). That's where the 210mm comes from. Since the lens is further away from the sensor, the angle of view is narrower.
The point I was making is that the term "focus breathing" is used to describe two different things (which is confusing!) For still photography, when a lens focal length changes drastically when focusing, it is known as focus breathing. It usually shows as a reduction in focal length when focusing close, which means the framing is wider and the magnification is less than expected. For example, compare the 28-300 zoom @300m at close range, compared to a 300mm prime.
Video photographers usually want the framing and subject size to stay constant when focusing. If the framing expands or shrinks that is also known as focus breathing. This effect is not usually of concern in still photography. If a unit-focusing lens is used for video, the framing will change as explained above. To counter this, the lens focal length needs to change to compensate. So to fix focus breathing (video) you need a lens with focus breathing (stills)
It would be useful if we used different terms for these effects since they are quite separate...
I have primarily heard "focus breathing" as a reference to angle of view changing while focusing. I believe this is what Nikon refers to as focus breathing as well. This is desired behavior for video, but also architectural photography or anything where subject framing is important. I have not heard the other use of the term, and would suggest that if a term is needed for that behavior it be something like focal length shift.
-
The focal length of unit-focusing lenses such as the 105/4 micro does not change when focusing. The focal length remains at 105mm whether at infinity, or 1:1 (with PN-11) or any other distance. The reason the angle of view gets narrower when focusing closer is that the optical center of the lens gets further from the image plane. At infinity (no extension) it is 105mm from the image plane. At 1:1 the distance increases to 210mm (105mm of the lens itself, plus 105mm extension). That's where the 210mm comes from. Since the lens is further away from the sensor, the angle of view is narrower.
This is a matter definition of terms. If you measure the 105/4.0 AI Micro when focused to infinity the focus distance from the rear principle point to the sensor is 105mm but it is only that when the lens is focused to infinity. When the 105/4.0 Ai Micro is focused to 1:1 the focus distance will be 210mm. Because the "focal length as used" has changed and the aperture's physical size has not changed the aperture ratio has to be recalculated. At infinity 105/26=4.0 and at 1:1 210/26=8.0. In my way of thinking the reason the angle of view is narrower when the 105/4.0 AI Micro is focused to 1:1 is because it is now a 210mm lens as used.
Dave
If at first you don't succeed change the subject: in days of old how did cinema photographers deal with focus breathing when using unit focusing lenses? :)
-
Focal length is the distance from the optical center (rear principal plane to be precise) at which parallel incoming rays intersect. This does not change with a unit focusing lens. When the focal point is on the image plane, the lens is focused to infinity (from where light comes in parallel). If the focal length doubled as in your example while the lens is extending, it would still be focused at infinity!
-
The Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 does not change focal length, the effective aperture changes as you focus closer, just like for the Bellows-Nikkor 105mm f/4
See the Nikon Instruction Manual here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuquqq_onxAhWi8-AKHRyLDvoQFjABegQIBBAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikonusa.com%2Fpdf%2Fmanuals%2Farchive%2FMicro-Nikkor%2520105mm%2520f-4.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0R2L7p-Xcb7KAFvu3qxmz0 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuquqq_onxAhWi8-AKHRyLDvoQFjABegQIBBAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikonusa.com%2Fpdf%2Fmanuals%2Farchive%2FMicro-Nikkor%2520105mm%2520f-4.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0R2L7p-Xcb7KAFvu3qxmz0)
And the Mir site for some nice details as well:
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/105mmicrof4.htm (https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/105mmicrof4.htm)
-
What is happening inside the camera is the inverse square law of light in action. The lens is the light source for the sensor. If you double the distance of the lens from your sensor then the level of light falling on your sensor is 1/4 of what it was at the closer distance. The image projected by the lens covers 4/1 times the area when the lens is moved twice as far from the sensor. The image sensor crops 1/4 of the image projected.
The illustration at this site may help...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Try thinking of r in the illustration as 105mm and 2r 210mm. The image sensor doesn't change size so it will sample only 1/4 of the area. I know the illustration is a section of a sphere and the sensor is flat but this is the best I can do.
...alternately you might scratch your head and wonder what is wrong with Dave. :)
-
Try thinking of r in the illustration as 105mm and 2r 210mm. The image sensor doesn't change size so it will sample only 1/4 of the area. I know the illustration is a section of a sphere and sensor is flat but this is the best I can do.
...alternately you might scratch your head and wonder what is wrong with Dave. :)
You are right about the reason for the lower brightness. It was just the claim that the unit focusing lens changes focal length when being extended that I (and also Erik) objected to. Actually, the unit focusing design is the only one that GUARANTEES that focal length will remain constant throughout the focusing range (all lenses including the focal point are just moving together as a unit) :).
-
This thread has been very informative.
My apologies if this question might go off topic a little... Is this version (105mm f/4 micro) the only one with a unit focusing design? The succeeding versions did not use the unit focusing design approach? Lastly, what information would be needed to somehow determine if focus breathing/ focal length reduction occurs in a particular macro lens?
Thanks,
Bern
-
Have a look at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#105Micro (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#105Micro)
It seems that starting from the 105/2.8 Ai-s, which introduced CRC (close-range correction), the micro lenses stopped being unit focusing.
Lastly, what information would be needed to somehow determine if focus breathing/ focal length reduction occurs in a particular macro lens?
Without mounting it on the camera? It is theoretically possible to infer from the lens diagram, but would probably require a lot of practice or a ray tracing program.
-
The 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor introduced in 1979 was the first Micro-Nikkor to have floating elements. At least I'm not aware of any Micro-Nikkors before the 55/2.8 AIS that had floating elements, internal focus or other hybrid optical designs. I believe the 105/4.0 UV Nikkor from 1985 was the last unit focusing Micro-Nikkor. According to Roland Vink's site the prototype UV Nikkor was badged "Micro" while the production lenses were not.
Dave
-
My apologies if this question might go off topic a little... Is this version (105mm f/4 micro) the only one with a unit focusing design? The succeeding versions did not use the unit focusing design approach? Lastly, what information would be needed to somehow determine if focus breathing/ focal length reduction occurs in a particular macro lens?
Almost any lens which has different groups of elements moving in relation to each other during focusing will have some change in focal length. That includes zooms and lenses with floating elements (close range correction), inner focusing, rear focusing, and front focusing (font groups moves for focusing while rear remains stationary - most kit zooms are like this)
The amount of focal length change varies from lens to lens, in some cases it is insignificant, in others it can be quite dramatic. The macro lenses from Nikon up to the 1970s, including the 55/3.5 and 105/4 are all unit focusing so have no change in focal length when focusing. All the macro lenses starting with the AIS 55/2.8 and AIS 105/2.8 have close range correction so have some focal length change. The AIS 55/2.8 is unusual in that the focal length increases when focused close.
-
We discuss two topics now?
Change in focal length and focus breathing?
I put my AIS 105/4 micro on camera and this lens has focus breathing (I can see that even hand hold).
But I think that is quite obvious why it has focus breathing. It would need a change in focal length during focusing to avoid that like the cine lens "prime" which also zooms a bit when it is focused?
-
The AF-S 105/2.8G IF-ED VR Micro-Nikkor is said to have serious focus breathing. I don't think I've ever used this lens on a tripods so I haven't noticed focus breathing as a problem. It's also large and bulky so I don't like it hanging off my camera while on a tripod. VR reduces the need for a tripod. I probably checked and confirm the focus breathing long ago. 8)
Lenses like the 105/4.0 AI and 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor can be used with a macro slider when on a tripod so breathing isn't so much of a problem. I use a long Wimberley C-30 Arca-Swiss style clamp with a lens plate or camera cross plate as a macro slider. The slider reduces the need to move your tripod. The image ratio is set first and then the camera and lens are moved together to achieve focus. It really helps to know the image ratio you'll need to fill the frame. A programmable scientific calculator or computer spread sheet can help, e.g. if your subject is 50mm long and you want it to be 25mm long on the sensor or film then you'll use a ratio of 1:2. You measure or estimate the subject size, determine how big it should be on the image sensor and let the program or spread sheet calculate the image ratio and subject distance.
I wrote a program for an HP-15C scientific calculator to make setting up a view camera easy. You would measure the subject and determine how large you wanted the image on film and the program would give you the bellows draw and lens to subject distance. The program also gave the exposure compensation needed when using a hand hand held light meter. You'd set your tripod and you'd almost be there. Only a little touch up would be needed.
Dave
Does anyone have the new 105mm Micro-Nikkor in Z mount?
I'm willing to be jealous.
I'm wanting to be jealous.
I'm waiting to be jealous.
-
We discuss two topics now?
Change in focal length and focus breathing?
I put my AIS 105/4 micro on camera and this lens has focus breathing (I can see that even hand hold).
But I think that is quite obvious why it has focus breathing. It would need a change in focal length during focusing to avoid that like the cine lens "prime" which also zooms a bit when it is focused?
Focus breathing is a term mostly used around shooting video and film as several has commented by now.
IMHO It covers very well the issue here by giving non video/film photographers an visual guide to what is occurring with the visual impact and working distance when using an IF lens that changes focal length as it is focused, especially in the micro macro range.Sorry if you find it confusing. That was not the intension.
-
It was just that a "unit-focus" lens does not prevent focus breathing?
-
Depends on what you mean by "breathing".
A unit-focusing lens changes magnification of the subject, not (directly) the angle of view. However, being unit-focusing means the camera stand-point has to move to get an altered magnification of the *same* subject. This of course implies an altered background as well. And a new perspective.
To clarify: this design class will allow you to trim focus precisely largely without changes in the framing. One uses the same principle in focus stacking, but depending on the stack depth, framing will alter as the camera/lens moves along a rail.
-
Yes, I also regard change of magnification as "focus breathing".
-
Well, then the concept has lost any meaning.
If I want to depict something bigger, I need to move closer with a unit-focusing lens. Angle of view does not change, but perspective does, and so does background. Other lenses allow the camera to stay put. Thus in the latter case, perspective stays the same, however angle of view has to change since magnification changes. Still other optical designs combine the responses differently.
I was immensely annoyed by the focus breathing of the AFS 105/2.8 VR: with the camera on a tripod, I could not refocus ie. make tiny adjustments to the focused plane, without changing the entire view, or move the tripod. For close-ups that was a deal breaker.
-
Ok. My definition of a "non focus breathing" lens was a lens that could be used as a prof. cine lens.
So a lens where angle of view is not changed when focused from close range to infinity......like demonstrated in the video I had a link to.....
But I can now see why I got confused.....
-
Ok. My definition of a "non focus breathing" lens was a lens that could be used as a prof. cine lens.
So a lens where angle of view is not changed when focused from close range to infinity......like demonstrated in the video I had a link to.....
But I can now see why I got confused.....
Right, that is the most commonly used definition the way I have understood it. I.e. angle of view stays constant as the focus is changed.
Anyway, what is not important is the exact meaning of specific terms but to use them in such a way that everyone can understand the meaning of those terms in the context of the discussion. I.e., when using a term, explain what you mean by it in the beginning.
-
You are right!
I had the assumption that if "anything moves" during focusing it was "focus breathing".......call it change in magnification, angle of view.....or whatever.
But I can now see that it is more complex than that :-)
-
If I want to depict something bigger, I need to move closer with a unit-focusing lens. Angle of view does not change, but perspective does, and so does background.
Now I'm getting confused as well :D
My understanding is that for large extensions (compared to the focal length), the effective (as opposed to the nominal one which usually refers to the AOV at infinity) angle of view narrows with a unit-focusing lens. Thus a unit-focusing lens will 'breathe' significantly at closer range. It is sometimes hard to see this because the background blurs so much, but one should look at the centers of the blur circles moving outward. In other words, cine lenses that are not supposed to breathe cannot be unit focusing. Basically in a non-breathing lens, the optical center of the lens has to remain stationary with respect to the sensor plane as the lens is focused back and forth. Which implies that the focal length in a non-breathing lens has to shorten as the lens is focused closer.
-
There is a small article here about "focus-breathing":
https://photographylife.com/focus-breathing (https://photographylife.com/focus-breathing)
They use Nikkors as examples and it seems focus-breathing has been taking care of in the Z-lenses.
-
Thanks for reminding me of that article, which I read back when it came out. Unfortunately that article may cause more confusion, but there are a few comments below the article that are actually worth reading.
E.g. the comment by Kenneth Almquist, which confirms my guess above, particularly this part:
Focusing works differently on cinema lenses than it does on photographic lenses. On a cinema lens, changing the focus changes the focal length of the lens while keeping the optical center (and thus the field of view) constant. If there is a 50mm macro cinema lens out there, it will have a focal length of 50mm when focused at infinity and a focal length of 25mm when focused an at object close enough to get a 1:1 reproduction ratio.
-
There is a small article here about "focus-breathing":
https://photographylife.com/focus-breathing (https://photographylife.com/focus-breathing)
They use Nikkors as examples and it seems focus-breathing has been taking care of in the Z-lenses.
Yes, some of the Nikkor Z mount lenses, but not all of them.
-
I agree, a DC feature would have been nice, however I must say that the DC ring was of very limited use/effect when the lens is used wide open or close to, on the 105mm AF-D f/2
Considering it's half the price of a used CV APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 and build quality is probably much much higher, it will be very interesting to see how it fares.
yes a DC feature would not be nice, but not mandatory. I just wanted to point out that Nikon has ceized to offer DC functionality after decades of being the only manufacturer, and leaving this field to Canon now.
The new lens is definitely interesting, i would accept a higher price if the image and build quality is stellar. The CV Apo Lanthar 125 mm had a similar price as long as it was still available new- it more than doubled its price since it is only available second-hand
-
Some of us will have to wait longer (similar situation as with the D850, a lot of demand but Nikon could not deliver)
https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/17/as-expected-nikkor-z-mc-105mm-f-2-8-vr-s-macro-lens-delayed-nikon-apologizes.aspx/
-
I agree, a DC feature would have been nice, however I must say that the DC ring was of very limited use/effect when the lens is used wide open or close to, on the 105mm AF-D f/2
I was under the impression that the DC feature was most effective at full aperture. The DC ring introduces uncorrected spherical aberrations to alter the front and rear bokeh, and stopping down reduces spherical aberrations so the effect quickly reduces at smaller apertures.
The DC effect of the 105DC is less than the 135DC due to the shorter focal length. The Canon RF 100mm macro has a similar focal length and is a stop slower than the 105DC, so I would expect the effect to be even less. To produce an obvious effect, overall sharpness should suffer since you can't introduce spherical aberrations without affecting sharpness. It seems like it a gimmick for a macro lens where maximum sharpness is usually needed, and would be more appropriate for a medium telephoto portrait lens. But I guess we won't really know until we see some real-life images.
-
I was under the impression that the DC feature was most effective at full aperture. The DC ring introduces uncorrected spherical aberrations to alter the front and rear bokeh, and stopping down reduces spherical aberrations so the effect quickly reduces at smaller apertures.
This was my understanding also. If it were not for the M/A ring that can break I would probably buy a 105mm DC now. I always wanted one but I doubt that Nikon will service the lens for long. I wouldn't place money on Nikon serving the 105/2.0 DC now. I'd check.
I'd be very happy with an AF-S 105mm f/1.8G or E, IF-ED Nikkor. I'm sure a 105/1.8 will never be made.
Dave
From Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights; Tale 5, AI 105mm F2.5...
The insufficiency as far as spherical aberration in particular is what makes defocus background appeared beautiful.
...This condition exists at maximum aperture and portrait focus distance.
-
I was under the impression that the DC feature was most effective at full aperture. The DC ring introduces uncorrected spherical aberrations to alter the front and rear bokeh, and stopping down reduces spherical aberrations so the effect quickly reduces at smaller apertures.
The DC effect of the 105DC is less than the 135DC due to the shorter focal length. The Canon RF 100mm macro has a similar focal length and is a stop slower than the 105DC, so I would expect the effect to be even less. To produce an obvious effect, overall sharpness should suffer since you can't introduce spherical aberrations without affecting sharpness. It seems like it a gimmick for a macro lens where maximum sharpness is usually needed, and would be more appropriate for a medium telephoto portrait lens. But I guess we won't really know until we see some real-life images.
What I meant was exactly what you also state, loss of sharpness or as Nikon states resolution.
It's lens designed for shooting film, today we have huge resolution and optimal image quality so much easier to edit in post processing.
Here is a clip from the user manual from Nikon: Note third paragraph
https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/305/AF_DC-Nikkor_105mm_f_2D.html (https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/305/AF_DC-Nikkor_105mm_f_2D.html)
-
I was under the impression that the DC feature was most effective at full aperture. The DC ring introduces uncorrected spherical aberrations to alter the front and rear bokeh, and stopping down reduces spherical aberrations so the effect quickly reduces at smaller apertures.
The DC effect of the 105DC is less than the 135DC due to the shorter focal length. The Canon RF 100mm macro has a similar focal length and is a stop slower than the 105DC, so I would expect the effect to be even less. To produce an obvious effect, overall sharpness should suffer since you can't introduce spherical aberrations without affecting sharpness. It seems like it a gimmick for a macro lens where maximum sharpness is usually needed, and would be more appropriate for a medium telephoto portrait lens. But I guess we won't really know until we see some real-life images.
maximum sharpness is an important but not the only criteria for all situations. There is nothing against additional options and with the DC ring in normal position sharpness and resolutoin should be unaltered.
-
For those whom have the CV125 and made the full transition to the Zee or Sony platforms I suggest to ditch the Nikon “Ai-P” version for their Canon EF counterpart as the latter has an “E” electronic aperture control mechanism which is pretty much mirrorless mount agnostic as it only needs a simple electronic adapter.
So with my CV125 EF I have full exif and aperture control on both the Sony a7S and now the Z6 using a very slim adapter.
-
My CV 125 mm f/2,5 is just AI-S. But there are some chipped AI-P samples out there. Interesting thought to chose the EF version Jan Anne. Which adapter are you using?
-
Still in transition haha so for now a stacked solution with the old Metabones EF-FE adapter plus the Techart Pro FE to Z adapter where the latter is also used for the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 and Voigtlander 15/4.5 until Nikon releases the 35/1.2 and 14/1.8.
Everything works but somehow wideopen is now 2.4 instead of 2.5 but this should be solved with a dedicated EF to Z adapter, there are several on the market now but am waiting for some more alternatives until I actually need one.
-
Just got an e-mail that my pre-ordered Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 Z is on its way. The sluggish Norwegian mail might delay delivery of my lens until beginning of next week, but anyway, a surprise worth its while in waiting. Actually, I pre-ordered just a few days ago :)
If the lens lives up to expectation, the Z system has made a significant leap forwards for sure.
-
i will make a review of both lenses when i have the time :o :o :o
-
Cannot match you there, as my only interest is the 105MC Z, no 50 micro for me.
If Norwegian Mail is to be believed (sic), the lens arrives firstcoming Monday June 28th.
-
im not buying any Z lenses, the raw files are processed so i couldnt see how the lenses actually perform :o :o :o
-
im not buying any Z lenses, the raw files are processed so i couldnt see how the lenses actually perform :o :o :o
I don't think the raw files are "processed" in any unusual way (I am sure there is some processing to remove certain kinds of noise that is not easily removed without prior knowledge of the hardware), but Nikon and Adobe converters follow the tags that give the information on how to process the images by default, and this includes some vignetting and distortion correction. If one wants to avoid those, another raw converter that does not follow these instructions should do the trick. You should be able to get uncorrected images as a result.
-
im not buying any Z lenses, the raw files are processed so i couldnt see how the lenses actually perform :o :o :o
As much as I sympathize with this viewpoint, photography is about the whole workflow, from subject selection, lighting, composition, lens, body, sensor/film, post-process, narrative to appreciation of the final result. Of course for many there is joy (and anti-joy sometimes) in the process, but I find that a system that out-performs the sum of the parts through the clever application of math and science to be something joyful rather than something I’d avoid buying.
-
im not buying any Z lenses, the raw files are processed so i couldnt see how the lenses actually perform :o :o :o
Using Nikon software, Capture NX-D or NX Studio, anything that was not "baked into" the NEF file can be turned off. I would download the NEF files. Download Nikon Capture NX-D or NX Studio and install one. Set the Picture Control to Neutral and turn off all sharpening and noise control. Why not set the PC to Flat? I don't think Flat is a practical consideration unless one plans on extensive post processing of the RAW file.
Was there ever a "Flat" negative film and paper combination? Maybe a very low contrast film and grade 0 paper, yuck!
A negative film always compresses the shadow contrast and the printing paper always compresses the highlight contrast. That is the nature of the wet photographic process. You could reduce this by choosing the lowest contrast film and developer combination and then choosing the lowest contrast printing paper and developer but never completely remove the compression of shadow and highlight from the photographic process.
Dave
-
well, that just doesn't work for me unfortunately :o :o :o at least for my purpose ::) maybe if i actually get back to shooting instead of reviewing then that may not bother me at all.
on another topic:
105/2.8:
quite sharp, almost no aberrations even wide-open, i think i turned off any in-camera corrections but i cannot trust the results i see.
i am not sure but the resolution seemed so-so until you get to f/5.6, not bad but i expected more from it, still much better than the G.
focus is fast but not instantaneous, if i am not mistaken the older 105G may be faster. af hunts a bit.
while IQ appears rather good it felt underwhelming, maybe i am just picky.
50/2.8:
very sharp, near-perfect, exceeded all my expectations. this is something that you should try for yourself to believe it.
excellent resolution even wide-open.
very minimal to no aberrations, again, i do not know if the camera is applying something to it so i cannot trust what i see.
slower af compared to the older G, i mean a lot slower. the older G will "snap", this won't.
focus-by-wire is nice at normal distances but it sucks when doing macro, not bad but nothing beats a real helicoid.
the extending barrel can be a problem in real-world use but nobody was complaining with the older lenses that did the same.
focus breathing
-
This is incorrect. Z cameras produce NEF files which have instructions for distortion and vignetting correction which for some lenses cannot be turned completely off in Adobe or Nikon raw conversion software. You can get the true image projected by the lens from e.g. dcraw of any raw converter which doesn't obey the instructions regarding distortion correction. Capture One is mentioned as one which also allows turning them off.
This seems to be standard practice in mirrorless cameras by several brands.
Using Nikon software, Capture NX-D or NX Studio, anything that was not "baked into" the NEF file can be turned off.
-
You can get the true image projected by the lens from e.g. dcraw of any raw converter which doesn't obey the instructions regarding distortion correction. Capture One is mentioned as one which also allows turning them off.
Rawtherapee is another which lets you avoid lens corrections. It also has one of the widest range of debayering options:
http://rawtherapee.com
-
the extending barrel can be a problem in real-world use but nobody was complaining with the older lenses that did the same.
focus breathing
I‘d be worried about bumping into something and disaligning or scratching the optics. How sturdy is that mechanism? I‘m not worried about that on the 55/2.8 ai-s. That is built like a tank, and the front lens is deep inside a funnel-shaped recess.
-
Z cameras produce NEF files which have instructions for distortion and vignetting correction which for some lenses cannot be turned completely off in Adobe or Nikon raw conversion software.
This is unpleasant at the least. Are people voicing their displeasure? I hope makers who force corrections to cover for lens flaws get slammed for this practice.
Dave
-
I‘d be worried about bumping into something and disaligning or scratching the optics. How sturdy is that mechanism? I‘m not worried about that on the 55/2.8 ai-s. That is built like a tank, and the front lens is deep inside a funnel-shaped recess.
it appears more rigid than the F counterpart but still not ideal :o :o :o
the filter size is kind of odd, too ::)
-
Rawtherapee is another which lets you avoid lens corrections. It also has one of the widest range of debayering options:
http://rawtherapee.com
Thank you for sharing! One appears as a very useful tool! LZ
-
https://richardhaw.com/2021/06/27/review-nikkor-z-mc-50mm-f-2-8/
wow, i wasnt expecting to see some of the things that i mentioned in my own review lol :o :o :o
my "tests" were inconclusive...
i found small amounts of distortion on some photos while i didnt se any on some. we will see next week!
-
it appears more rigid than the F counterpart but still not ideal :o :o :o
the filter size is kind of odd, too ::)
Which F lens is that?
-
Which F lens is that?
60/2.8D :o :o :o
-
This is incorrect. Z cameras produce NEF files which have instructions for distortion and vignetting correction which for some lenses cannot be turned completely off in Adobe or Nikon raw conversion software. You can get the true image projected by the lens from e.g. dcraw of any raw converter which doesn't obey the instructions regarding distortion correction. Capture One is mentioned as one which also allows turning them off.
This seems to be standard practice in mirrorless cameras by several brands.
I've never heard this before. I hope companies who do this get slammed in reviews and on forums for this.
Dave
-
https://richardhaw.com/2021/06/27/review-nikkor-z-mc-50mm-f-2-8/
wow, I wasn't expecting to see some of the things that I mentioned in my own review lol :o :o :o
my "tests" were inconclusive...
i found small amounts of distortion on some photos while I didn't see any on some. we will see next week!
Very nice topic, good observation - to - begin with. One only thing, which you know - there is a very tough choice of engineering of any optical system - a choice between distortions and resolution. In this case, the resolving power is on the top as for today's needs. So, there are AUTO corrections tools, build inside the camera. Let it work! THX! LZ
-
B&H has shipped both Z Macro lenses, which should arrive this coming Wednesday.
-
I like this typeface
-
Never say never. Norwegian Mail for once lived up to their silly slogan 'we live to deliver' and dropped the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 MC S-Line at my nearest postal service point. To have them deliver to my door step which in fact I had paid for, probably was asking too much ....
Anyway, here it is,
-
I'm not in a place right now where images can be processed, so first impressions are just that: gleaned off the camera display. The lens handles pretty well on a Z6. There is no tripod collar but I can easily see a third-party solution to remedy this missing feature as the lens has a near-bayonet smooth surface suitable for that purpose.
Images appear crisp and sharp and flare apparently is quite well controlled. Bokeh is super smooth and pleasing. Cat's eyes creep in towards the periphery like with most modern lenses, though, but didn't seem too annoying. I cannot see any obvious CA nasties however they might surface when NEFs are processed (now I'm looking at in-camera jpgs).
So far, this Micro seems to be a worthy addition to the Micro-Nikkor lineage and much more well behaved than the F-mount predecessor.
-
Thanks for your first impression Birna. Looks good !
-
I like the blue trimming on the lens ;D
-
I am hopeful this will be a replacement for the current 105mm VR which I seldom use for a variety of reasons, mostly that it is not well-enough corrected. This new one I plan to use outside for fast moving insects and flower/insect shots. I have no expectations that it will replace the CV-125, but if it comes close, that would help. It being a native Z lens will be a big help. And, if it is good enough, I could use it for a lot of walk-around and family shots. I guess I am just happy to have a native Z macro lenses. As for the 50mm macro, if it is good enough I would use it a lot because I like context in my close-ups. I should find out Wednesday when my lenses arrive.
-
This is unpleasant at the least. Are people voicing their displeasure? I hope makers who force corrections to cover for lens flaws get slammed for this practice.
Dave
How is a lens correction any different than a software correction? Digital camera systems optimize the resulting image through whatever technologies they can - in body image stabilization, color correction, diffraction control, dewarping, color aberration correction, anti-vignette, dynamic range control, sensor super sampling. Each element of the system plays a part, and as an integrated system different parts can be designed to make up for shortcomings in other parts. As long as the image I get off the card is what I want why would I slam a manufacturer for doing everything possible to make it the best?
-
The "virtual unboxing" ... hand-held, every option set to OFF in Photo Ninja.
I took these at 1/20 sec, f/4.5, ISO 400 on my Z6. Entire frame and 100% crop shown.
I did a few NEFs in PN first, then tried NX Studio. That darned latter software silently deleted all my NEFs in the actual folder --- not a nice behaviour !!! Thus I have to try a data recovery on the XQD card if more samples are to be shown. (deleted North Norwegian expletive here)
-
I managed to restore the deleted files from the XQD card. No more NX Studio for me, thank you :(
It's too late for any additional processing now, so I'll present some results on the morrow. Suffice it to say the lens is really sharp and above all, has a nice bokeh. While it is not an APO lens by design, the CA issues are apparently brought under strict control. I switched all CA reduction off in Photo Ninja but it seems there is next to nothing to remove any way.
-
I managed to restore the deleted files from the XQD card. No more NX Studio for me, thank you :(
It's too late for any additional processing now, so I'll present some results on the morrow. Suffice it to say the lens is really sharp and above all, has a nice bokeh. While it is not an APO lens by design, the CA issues are apparently brought under strict control. I switched all CA reduction off in Photo Ninja but it seems there is next to nothing to remove any way.
That is a distinct lack of CA. Very promising.
-
A few quick'n'dirty examples. As is well known, I'm partial to red cars. Even a VW can make do in a pinch!
The image shows the very gradual and smooth transition foreground-background. f/4.5 with ISO 400. Straight through Photo Ninja, no CA removal activated. The 100% crop shows crisp details.
-
My local coffee shop is run by Moroccan immigrants. Very friendly and nice people and the coffe is superb. Here I caught the nephew of the proprietor with the 105 MC set to f/2.8. Again, straight through Photo Ninja, no CA etc. removal/adjustments applied.
-
Congratulations on the new lens! Looks like a really nice rendering!
-
Like nearly all native Z Nikkors, the 105mm f/2.8 MC struggles in IR. One can close aperture down to f/5.6, perhaps f/8 in a pinch, but any stopping further down leads to a strong IR hot-spot.
First f/4, next f/32. Hand-held so pay no attention to detail sharpness. No special IR-dedicated post processing, just cast into b/w in Photo Ninja, hence the "soggy" overall look.
-
Any Micro-Nikkor worth its pedigree should be able to deliver good close-up photos. Normally I would work from a tripod, but as the 105MC touts an efficient VR feature, I for now am making snapshots with the hand-held camera.
This is a section of my studio with the centre-piece being the venerable Nikon SMZ stereo microscope used by me for 50 years++. It still works, perhaps less smoothly than in its youth, but similar can be said of yours truly, thus we are peers in this regard :)
The lens was set wide-open f/2.8, but effective aperture dropped to f/3 as I focused closer. All as it should be. One might just barely discern the Manfrotto stands for my studio strobes in the background. The overall rendering is silky smooth and effortless.
Again, entire frame and 100% crop.
-
Assuming manual focussing is through wire, how good does it work? Is it still non-linear like the other Z lenses, and has it a smooth, well damped focus ring? In other words, is manual focus on this lens up to the Sony GM lenses (which are very good in this respect)?
-
Manual focusing is easy but overall focus travel is quite short, likely less than 180 degrees (a bit difficult to ascertain as there are no fixed end stops to the travel).
Pin-point focus accuracy can be achieved, yet with a hand-held camera using the focus magnifier when VR is active is not without problems. I tend to get a little nauseated with magnifier set to 200% as the details "swim around" a lot in the finder. Probably much easier if the lens/camera is on a tripod.
-
OK, so making a snapshot at 1:1 life-size with a hand-held camera at 1/25 sec is generally asking for trouble -- I know. However, as this example shows, the 105MC will deliver useable if not perfectly sharp images even under such circumstances.
The NEF is straight through Photo Ninja, no CA removal performed. One can appreciate how little there is of this present. True, some vestiges linger and are detectable with a nit-picking eye. However, even the legendary APO-Lanthar 125/2.5 will hardly do better at this magnification. The background fabric is mottled in colours, but that is hardly the fault of the lens, just the print itself :) The perfect lack of field curvature is also apparent (and my "built-in" -1.5 degree tilt).
At 1X, the lens at a nominal f/2.8 setting will display an effective aperture of f/4.5, which indicates there has been a significant shortening of actual focal length. A traditional unit-focusing design would be around f/5.6 by the way. Again, no surprise as this behaviour was expected. One should remove the lens hood for these close-ups as it might interfere with the subject since working distance gets short.
-
It surely looks like a lens that may replace my Zeiss 135mm Milvus lens. I like the rendering and lack of CA. Thanks for sharing the examples.
-
I went to talk about the Z fc with my dealer and ended up with a 105 MC Nikkor in my bag!
-
I will weigh in with my critique of these two new Z-mount macro lenses. First, I’m not sending them back, which is statement in itself. And second, it should be understood that I am only giving my two cents as to how they relate to my work, which is usually close-up, but not macro, and focus stacked.
And I should add, I bought these for use outside with insects and shots that require (or benefit) from auto-focus. The Z 105 Macro is the deal, meaning it is the best (and most expensive) of the two. Also, I have a great many (scores) of macro-range lenses, so I am picky this late in the game. The Z 50mm Macro, I will use much less, but I will use it because of the added context possible of a wider lens. I am all about context, which is why I like close-up and not so much macro. Just sharing my parameters here.
The Z 105mm Macro
It’s good. Easily sharp enough. Able to do 1:1, not that I do much of that. The bokeh is better than I expected and very usable. In fact, the lens is all good with one glaring (for my work) exception, and that is the short focus throw.
Lenses like the CV-125 have like 360-degree throws and the Leical Elmarit-R 100 APO macro has twice this. This new Z105 Macro has way less, barely enough to be useful for my work. That is disappointing and, IMO, an oversight on Nikon’s part considering this is a macro lens. What were they thinking?
Well, they were not thinking about those of us who are stacking focus. Of course, I could put it on a focus rail, but I’m not likely to do that often, because I have many other lenses that are better that do not require a focus rail. With nimble fingering on the barrel, I can sqeak through a focus stack of many layers, but I am aware of the shortcomings of this lens for that.
So, that almost would have me sending the lens back, except I did not buy it to stack focus, as mentioned, but to shoot outside with auto-focus, with or without a tripod. In summary, the 105 Z Macro is a fine lens, with the one exception I mentioned, the short focus-throw.
Nikon Z 50mm Macro
I have less to say here. This is a good usable lens, sharp enough, corrected enough, bokeh OK, and also a short focus throw. This is a less expensive lens, yet still meaningful for my work because it has auto-focus and is a wider-angle lens than most other macros. So, I will use it, outside, for greater context.
And so, as mentioned, not sending either back, but relegating it for outdoor work and probably not used in the studio, unless I get lazy. I like both these lenses.
-
Michael, try the focus shift feature. You might find it makes the focus stacker's life easier. :) At least that's one of the main reasons for me to get the new 105.
-
Michael, try the focus shift feature. You might find it makes the focus stacker's life easier. :) At least that's one of the main reasons for me to get the new 105.
Yes, that is true. Good point and I do use that. The problem with that as opposed to the internal Nikon stacking is that if you have something like a sphere, you have to shorten the steps to catch all the "roundness." To have a short focus throw on a macro lens is, to me, an oxymoron.
-
To have a short focus throw on a macro lens is, to me, an oxymoron.
I agree!
Dave
-
The focus shift feature uses AF, so assuming you use this feature and it works, the short manual focus throw shouldn't be a problem for this type of photography.
I agree that for manual focusing, a longer focus throw is desirable. Is this a lens which requires less rotation of the focus ring if you move it quickly? If so, what is the focus throw when you turn the focus ring very slowly?
-
The focus shift feature uses AF, so assuming you use this feature and it works, the short manual focus throw shouldn't be a problem for this type of photography.
I agree that for manual focusing, a longer focus throw is desirable. Is this a lens which requires less rotation of the focus ring if you move it quickly? If so, what is the focus throw when you turn the focus ring very slowly?
Not sure how you measure on focus-by-wire, but using it, it seems not fine enough as far as I can see.
-
The AF focuses in small steps so it seems that the focus ring could be programmed to work that way too - a manual focusing "speed" setting via the menu seems like a "no-brainer". Maybe even better would be to be able to program the auxiliary ring on end of the lens to be for customized fine focusing analogous to a microscope fine focusing ring with the other ring for coarse focusing (they could even enable swapping ring functions so the wide one could be for fine focusing). Nikon does have experience with microscopes so they do not have to think too far "out of the box".
-
But the marked for such a long focus throw manual focusing lens mode is minuscule - so I can understand that Nikon doesn't throw R&D hours at such a task.
There are other options for such work ;)
-
But the marked for such a long focus throw manual focusing lens mode is minuscule - so I can understand that Nikon doesn't throw R&D hours at such a task.
There are other options for such work ;)
Well, I can't help but look for a CV-125 lens in this Nikon macro. Not the same.
-
I don't think 'fly-by-wire' and 'long focus throw' are compatible design features.
-
I wonder if the focus control software could be hacked.
However...
The focus throw capabilities of this lens may be limited at a point that Nikon engineering is comfortable with. Not all angular displacement motor and control systems are specified for high resolution by design: this is typically a cost versus intended use decision.
Bob
-
ok, there is indeed a small amount of distortion with the 50/2.8 :o :o :o
-
https://richardhaw.com/2021/06/27/review-nikkor-z-mc-50mm-f-2-8/
updated with distortion and vignetting examples. very disappointing :o :o :o
-
https://richardhaw.com/2021/06/27/review-nikkor-z-mc-50mm-f-2-8/
updated with distortion and vignetting examples. very disappointing :o :o :o
If applying software correction, is the residual distortion sufficiently low to use it for reproduction applications?
-
https://richardhaw.com/2021/06/27/review-nikkor-z-mc-50mm-f-2-8/
updated with distortion and vignetting examples. very disappointing :o :o :o
I guess from here on out the final results after in camera and or software processing is what to expect from Nikon. I feel mixed about this. I'd really like to see near zero distortion and no need for correction. I'd also like to see vignette tamed better: modest wide open and very well tamed by f/5.6.
Dave
-
I guess from here on out the final results after in camera and or software processing is what to expect from Nikon. I feel mixed about this. I'd really like to see near zero distortion and no need for correction. I'd also like to see vignette tamed better: modest wide open and very well tamed by f/5.6.
Dave
This is the way things are with complex systems.
Even simple things like brakes on your car have feedback loops and correction which allow you to stop more quickly than you would just by stomping on the pedal. The internet is littered with videos of idiots who turn off electronic traction control on their 500+ horsepower cars and immediately spin out of control.
For thousands of years human teams specialize and have people with certain strengths compensate for other weaknesses to deliver better results than could be obtained without that sort of specialization.
As someone who started in the film era, burning, dodging, masking, using different developers, papers, and techniques to get the best images from a photographic system were always part of the process.
That we are now using digital techniques to correct geometric distortion or evade the long reaches of the cos^4 law makes perfect sense and allows lens designers more degrees of freedom to produce lenses which have beautiful rendering. I would be disappointed if Nikon was NOT taking advantage of this.
-
If applying software correction, is the residual distortion sufficiently low to use it for reproduction applications?
i dont think so. this amount is too large for reproduction work :o :o :o
coin and stamp photographers will be disappointed by this.
vignetting is strange, you can see how the dirt in the background is getting more focused as i stop the iris down so it means that the iris is indeed getting smaller but the dark corners are still there despite stopping it down to f/8.
i used to have a low opinion about the 60/2.8G but it now looks good compared to this.
sharpness and aberration control is near-perfect though.
-
Mechanical vignetting is like having the lens stopped down towards the corners. As you know, stopping down reduces many aberrations and improves sharpness, so many lenses are intentionally designed this way, but it does this at the expense of dark corners.
Higher vignetting is a side effect of mirrorless lens designs, especially for wide-angle lenses - the exit pupil is closer to the sensor so the image corners are relatively further from the lens than the centre, and the cos^4 law becomes more noticeable. It wasn't so much of a problem with SLR lenses since the mirror forced the exit pupil to be further from the sensor, the optics were more telecentric so the cos^4 effect was less.
Mechanical vignetting can be "fixed" by designing lenses with larger front and rear elements. But this makes the lens larger, and extra elements or special glasses may be required to keep corner performance to an acceptable level. And if you are going to use larger elements you may as well make the entire lens faster (with same amount of mechanical vignetting as the slower design) and charge more for it :o :)
Optical vignetting caused by the cos^4 law can be reduced by using more telecentric designs, but this causes the lens to become larger and we lose some of the advantages of mirrorless camera systems.
-
Distortion: 0.7
There’s just the merest hint of pincushion distortion but this will generally go completely unnoticed even when shooting straight-sided objects. And that’s even with in-camera correction switched off.
from:
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z-mc-50mm-f28-review?fbclid=IwAR2iUelBWMUtupu9V4gGwSTNNnyFeZiOTrvCjGPY5imegBcLJ6Cj2TzQhGI
about the same amount that i tested, mine was around 0.8 i think.
i do not agree with what he said that it is not noticeable, everyone can clearly see that in my samples :o :o :o
as previously mentioned, this is probably a trade-off that nikon was willing to make.
DXO measured 0.3 for the 60/2.8G ::)
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-Micro-NIKKOR-60mm-F28G-ED-mounted-on-Nikon-D800E__814
i am usually not very critical of distortion but its unacceptable for a lens of this class to have anything that is noticeable without using tools and rulers.
i could clearly see lines curve inward. in fact, i even noticed that when i was looking at the peep-hole viewfinder of my Z6
i guess the older lenses had to perform better here since its harder to hide this with film as there are no post-process for distortion.
-
You have NAS! ;)
I prescribe wine.
Enjoy the wine (and the lens). ;D
I went to talk about the Z fc with my dealer and ended up with a 105 MC Nikkor in my bag!
-
You have NAS! ;)
Tell me about it. ;-)
I had thought I was going to get a Z6 II to use the lens but it took me another week to be able to get a hold of one as they were out of stock all over the place. It seems the current rebates are making this camera move quickly.
I was taking casual photos of objects and people to get familiar with the equipment. The image quality of the lens was outstanding, especially beautiful out-of-focus rendering. The sensor dynamic range is excellent as well, I was shooting in bright sunlight and could lift shadows recklessly with very good results. Just about everything about the images is nice.
I did my standard torture test of autofocus with the Z6 II + 105 MC as well, which is approaching people on the street at distances of maybe 2-20 m. I tried single point, dynamic area, and wide-area with human face modes. The modes are easy to select (Fn1 programmed for focus area change) though I'm used to seeing the focus area indicator on the top LCD which was absent with this new camera, so one has to view either through the viewfinder or back LCD to see the focus area change. I admit that it was not necessarily a fair test as a macro lens isn't necessarily going to focus its best on moving subjects at distances of several meters. But I was expecting a bit less erratic results. I got maybe 1 in 3 shots in focus when I was testing it on approaching people. With static subjects, AF seems to work fine. Also the 105 AF-S VR for F-mount doesn't autofocus all that great on this type of subject (approaching people) even with DSLR, but with 105/1.4 and 70-200/2.8 I'm used to most shots being in focus with DSLRs. I think it may simply not be an application the lens was designed for.
I think Nikon will sort out the AF in subsequent generations of cameras and I'm sure user skill and getting used to a new camera play a part as well. I'll give it some more time. As with everything one has to be aware of the capabilities of the gear and use it for subjects that it works well for. I'll test it on some sundew tonight in Nuuksio and post some shots if I make it back alive (mosquitoes and swamp ... not the most comfortable environment).
-
Thank you for your impressions (and sorry for having teased you!).
It would seem from your description that this lens might, in addition to its intended use, be a worthy modern successor to the much loved 105mm f/2.5 for portraiture without going to the expense of the stellar 105mm f/1.4E F-mount lens.
-
More testing with the Z 105 Macro on the Z7ii camera. In this note, I am just looking at focus stacking and how that 105 Macro works with the Z7ii’s internal focus-stacking ability. It seems to work well. Since I know of no way to figure out the total number in steps that will be needed, one has to guess. For example, I guessed, using the smallest increment of “1” that 100 images would be enough to capture a single flower from front to back. Yet, no, that did not work. It only captured perhaps ¾ of the flower. Setting the increment to 150 steps seems to do the job.
However, why couldn’t Nikon let us set the front edge of the image, the rear edge of the image, and the size of the step, and tell us the number of steps, or better yet just produce a picture given those parameters? It would not be rocket science. I would think a firmware update could handle that.
Putting that quibble aside, it seems like a step size of “1” (and enough layers) would be enough for almost anything I need, which for me means I can make use of this lens for stacking focus. Now, all that remains is to consider the IQ of the image.
So far, the IQ seem OK, perhaps better than that. I have to admit, I have been kind of holding my nose as to the capability of the internal focus stacking of the Nikon 7ii, but I’ll have to stop that. The system can produce good focus-stacked images.
Now what am I going to do with all the skill I have acquired doing this by hand all these years? Oh well. All I really care about are the end results, yet the process also deserves respect. However, I can adapt to any process that produces good results. And the internal focus stacking is way faster and less jiggly than doing it by hand, especially if one considers the changing light of the sun and shadows.
It is true that I have macro lenses that have better IQ and are better corrected, many of them, but all of these are manual lenses and would have to go on an automatic focus rail if I wanted to automate them. Of course, as a professional critic (music and film) by trade, I can’t help but be critical. I’m not happy with equipment, or more correct I’m happy, but could always be happier if we just tweaked this or that.
Here is a stacked image using the Nikon Z 105 Macro on the Nikon Zii.
-
I find sundew pretty difficult to photograph, as it grows in swamps and lives off catching insects many of which also love human blood. The swamp is wet and can pull you in. And it's hard to get things in usable depth of field.
I tested use of a small pillow (not unlike a bean bag) under the camera and took shots without a tripod, shock and horror. ;-)
This one is cropped from a horizontal image (problem was that the tilting screen just tilts one way, so I couldn't effectively shoot verticals without really getting into the water and mud.
This is with Z6 II + 105 MC, f/8, 1/125s, ISO 360.
I noticed mechanical shutter option is grayed out in the menu. There is only auto and EFCS. I wonder if Nikon figured that since it's a macro lens they don't sharpness-ruining vibration to be selected by the user. ;-)
-
... the 105 AF-S VR for F-mount doesn't autofocus all that great on this type of subject (even with DSLR, .
OK, not what either version of this lens was designed for, but my 105mm af/s seemed to handle fast moving subjects ok occasionally.
(this was taken along with a TC14 using a D300)
(https://pbase.com/celidh/image/149370394.jpg)
Meanwhile, I love your Sundew Ilkka, which appeared whilst I was still typing....
-
However, why couldn’t Nikon let us set the front edge of the image, the rear edge of the image, and the size of the step, and tell us the number of steps, or better yet just produce a picture given those parameters? It would not be rocket science. I would think a firmware update could handle that.
My thoughts exactly the first time I attempt this feature. I´t will eliminate to wild guess and save a lot of time and effort.
It does work as it is, mind you, but could be, as you propose, a more elegant solution.
-
Love that sundew Ilkka
-
looks like you're enjoying your new yoyo :o :o :o
i like the photo with the white flower.
please forgive my ignorance, what did you use for stitching the photos?
-
looks like you're enjoying your new yoyo :o :o :o
i like the photo with the white flower.
please forgive my ignorance, what did you use for stitching the photos?
If you mean the lily, no stitching, just stacking.
-
If you mean the lily, no stitching, just stacking.
sorry, thats what i meant :o :o :o
is it in-camera or did you use something like zerene
-
sorry, thats what i meant :o :o :o
is it in-camera or did you use something like zerene
Well, the shots (150) were in camera, but the camera does not stack them. That was Zerene Stacker, my software of choice. I am checking out the in-camera taking of a series for stacking. Here is another 150-image stack done with the Nikon Z7ii. I could get very used to this process, which means I am stuck with an auto-focus lens, of which there are very few great macro lenses that autofocus. Is this one or does this have to be one?
-
I agree that Nikon should change the user parameters for the focus shift so that the correct parameters are easier to figure out without having to resort to trial and error.
Maybe one way would be to specify the start and end points of the stack (click on the image twice or turn the ring manually and set start and end distances) and the step size should be somehow related to the depth of field in an easy to compute way. For example there could be an option to specify what circle of confusion is acceptable in the final image and then the camera would do the required shots to achieve that.
-
I agree that Nikon should change the user parameters for the focus shift so that the correct parameters are easier to figure out without having to resort to trial and error.
Maybe one way would be to specify the start and end points of the stack (click on the image twice or turn the ring manually and set start and end distances) and the step size should be somehow related to the depth of field in an easy to compute way. For example there could be an option to specify what circle of confusion is acceptable in the final image and then the camera would do the required shots to achieve that.
True, but one of us could also dedicate a few hours to calculating all this and coming up with a chart that lists the increments by 5 or 10 digits, the magnification, and the depth in mm/inches from front to back. That also might be not that hard to use and could help.
-
True, but one of us could also dedicate a few hours to calculating all this and coming up with a chart that lists the increments by 5 or 10 digits, the magnification, and the depth in mm/inches from front to back. That also might be not that hard to use and could help.
This would be really helpful
-
I can't say that the Z 105 Macro is not sharp!
-
Thom Hogan reviews the Z 105mm Macro in a very positive light.
https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-105mm-f28-lens-review.html
-
If I recall correctly, one of the disadvantages of the AF-S 105 VR micro is that it has a lot of focal length "breathing" at close range. So, when adjusting the focus at close range the framing was significantly altered, meaning you would have to change the the distance between camera and subject to re-frame correctly, which means having to adjust focus again which throws the framing out again... (to be fair, all macro lenses have this to some degree, I get around it by setting the magnification/framing first, and then moving the whole camera/lens forward and back to achieve focus)
Given that the new Z 105 micro has a broadly similar optical design as the AF-S version and appears to have even more focal length shortening at close range (at 1:1 the focus distance is 24mm shorter), is the focal length breathing at close range a problem with the new lens?
-
The answer is a resounding no.
To elaborate, 'breathing' is hardly noticeable even down to 1:2. Perhaps one may notice a wee bit around 1:1; however, so far this hasn't bothered me at all. In fact, I had to run a specific test to ascertain whether 'breathing' as such existed at all with this lens.
-
Thanks Birna, that is very positive. It looks like Nikon has a real winner with the new 105 micro.
-
Perhaps Nikon had cinematic usage in mind when they designed this lens?
-
Perhaps Nikon had cinematic usage in mind when they designed this lens?
i thought so too.
same sentiments, breathing is prevalent on this and the 50/2.8 in 1:1 or close to that but i guess that asking for too much :o :o :o
-
Perhaps Nikon had cinematic usage in mind when they designed this lens?
It makes sense that they target as wide a market as possible with this lens. There are still few S line lenses so filling multiple spots (macro, general use, video...) in this focal length will make it quite popular.
-
It makes sense that they target as wide a market as possible with this lens. There are still few S line lenses so filling multiple spots (macro, general use, video...) in this focal length will make it quite popular.
It displeasing to me that Nikon has failed to fill the spot held by the very popular 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor and all the 105/2.5(s) preceding it. The AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikkor is a poor replacement for the 105/2.5(s) it's a honker and although the new NIKKOR Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S Macro is smaller than the F bayonet lens it's hardly small, light and unobtrusive.
Dave
-
It displeasing to me that Nikon has failed to fill the spot held by the very popular 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor and all the 105/2.5(s) preceding it. The AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikkor is a poor replacement for the 105/2.5(s) it's a honker and although the new NIKKOR Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S Macro is smaller than the F bayonet lens it's hardly small, light and unobtrusive.
Dave
It has been 16 years since that lens was discontinued. I don't think the 5 element lens is making a comeback anytime soon. Even phone cameras are sporting lenses with 7 elements these days.
Good news is there are thousands of used 105mm f/2.5 out there which work better than ever on a wider variety of cameras.
-
Good news is there are thousands of used 105mm f/2.5 out there which work better than ever on a wider variety of cameras.
The bad news for me is the viewfinder of my D850 isn't quite good enough or my eyes are not good enough for focusing my AI and AIS Nikkors for reliable use at f/2.5.
Dave
-
The bad news for me is the viewfinder of my D850 isn't quite good enough or my eyes are not good enough for focusing my AI and AIS Nikkors for reliable use at f/2.5.
Dave
My eyes are getting old too. I put a Dk17 on my Df which helped, but moving to Z6 made the biggest difference. The zoomable viewfinder and in-body stabilization make it easier than ever. My old 55mm f/1.2 was becoming unusable wide open, but now it has a new life. Optical viewfinders have their quality, but electronic viewfinders are magic for older eyes. There are compromises, but they continue to get better with each new generation.
-
My eyes are getting old too. I put a Dk17 on my Df which helped, but moving to Z6 made the biggest difference. The zoomable viewfinder and in-body stabilization make it easier than ever. My old 55mm f/1.2 was becoming unusable wide open, but now it has a new life. Optical viewfinders have their quality, but electronic viewfinders are magic for older eyes. There are compromises, but they continue to get better with each new generation.
My eyes were getting bad, and astigmatism too. I just had cataract surgery in one eye, and now have 20/20 vision in that eye, and am doing the other eye in a few days. Hope to have the same vision in that eye as well. I they put in a Toric lens to deal with the astigmatism, so it does not have to be mostly in the glasses. Right now I don't need any glasses, at least for near vision.
-
I want to add a comment regarding the AF of the 105 MC (with Z6 II) for general photography, as a bit of a correction to my earlier post in this thread.
I have had more time with the kit and now have identified the reasons for most out of focus shots as something of user error. The camera is prone to focus on the background if even a small part of the focus area is lit significantly brighter than the subject (where most of the focus area would be, assuming correct usage). As long as the whole focus area is kept over the main subject, the camera and lens focus with a very high keeper rate. If the focus area is too large to be entirely confined within the edges of the main subject, and the subject is lit dimly compared to the background area within the focus area box, then focus on the background can easily happen. If the main subject is lit approximately equally to the background, then often the camera focuses correctly even if the focus area has some smaller part on the background. But the best results clearly are obtained by ensuring that no part of the focus area box is outside of the subject.
Occasionally the camera cannot focus on a really out of focus subject and won't even give it a try. I consider this a bug. I think it would be good if in this instance the camera would do a search of all distances, of course this is annoying to see this happen but it is a way out of the situation. This has happened to me with the Z6 II and both 35/1.8 and 105/2.8 MC lenses, but it's not a common thing.
I think my DSLRs are a bit less eager to focus on the background even if the focus brackets include some background that is brightly lit. I wonder if Nikon are able to change this over time in their mirrorless cameras or perhaps subject recognition is a way around the problem.
-
My eyes were getting bad, and astigmatism too. I just had cataract surgery in one eye, and now have 20/20 vision in that eye, and am doing the other eye in a few days. Hope to have the same vision in that eye as well. I they put in a Toric lens to deal with the astigmatism, so it does not have to be mostly in the glasses. Right now I don't need any glasses, at least for near vision.
Fifteen years ago I had similar surgery. I now have the best vision I have had in my life. My myopia was at minus 10.5. Plus a lot of astygmatism. Modern medicine is wonderful.
-
Toric lens? Please explain. I had one eye done about five years ago, great improvement, but I have vertical astigmatism, which I've heard is difficult to correct. I'm looking for answers, but mirrorless is not part of any solutions for me. I'm committed to my Df and Nikkor manual lenses from my F2SB days.
-
Toric lens? Please explain. I had one eye done about five years ago, great improvement, but I have vertical astigmatism, which I've heard is difficult to correct. I'm looking for answers, but mirrorless is not part of any solutions for me. I'm committed to my Df and Nikkor manual lenses from my F2SB days.
Toric lenses include astigmatism in their correction or at least a large part of it.
-
I continue to be impressed by the Z 105 Macro, when stacked.
Here are couple taken today as my dahlias start to come into bloom. What's not to like?
-
For those interested a YouTube review which apparently confirms this lens is the finest of it’s type currently available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SugM5tboWR8
-
I continue to be pleased with the Z 105mm Macro, this time doing close insect shots.
-
Stunning. And a ‘non-digital’ look.
-
+1. Love it
-
I continue to be pleased with the Z 105mm Macro, this time doing close insect shots.
Wow, the detail is incredible, was this a stacked shot, or single exposure with what aperture, must have been at least f11-16? Thanks for sharing Regards Gerry
-
Wow, the detail is incredible, was this a stacked shot, or single exposure with what aperture, must have been at least f11-16? Thanks for sharing Regards Gerry
Single shot.
-
My only question on this new lens, the Z 105 Macro is the “whites,” the very light. It seems the highs are slightly more easily blown out than I would like. I have to take more care to keep them in character.
-
More with the Nikon Z 105 Macro.
This time with the Night Blooming Cereus, blooms one night.
-
More with the Nikon Z 105 Macro.
This time with the Night Blooming Cereus, blooms one night.
Queen of the night, can be prolific or skip a year or so; beautiful.
-
Beautiful flower and nice lighting technique Michael ! (studio flash-lights ?)
-
Beautiful flower and nice lighting technique Michael ! (studio flash-lights ?)
Studio, yes. Flash, no. Just daylight LEDs and a little fiber-optics.