NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Billie Jean on March 30, 2016, 15:53:27
-
Hello all,
I am a beginner in close-up photography and I have an opportunity to acquire one of these two lenses:
AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G
or
Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4
What are your thoughts?
And before you decide, you should know a few things...I have Nikon D60 and I don't really care about autofocus. The only thing I think about is how to take a photo as close as possible :)
Can you help me decide between these two lenses? :)
-
The Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 is a true classic and an all round lens, you will find many images here are made with it.
It also takes extension rings very well, most new lenses have IF internal focusing like the 40mm, 60mm or 80mm AFS or later 105mm 2.8 Ais and AF-D and AFS that gives you a little better performance over the whole focus range but they loose working distance really quickly when you focus close-up.
You can't go wrong with Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 The nicest version is the Ais, but same optics as AI
-
Nothing wrong with the 105/4 at all, it is a wonderful lens and a timeless classic Nikkor. However, given she has the D60, the nod goes to the 40 mm f/2.8 DX Micro-Nikkor. It is light weight and very sharp. The 40 G will be fully compatible with this camera.
You will not get metering with the 105/4 on a D60 unless it is CPU-modified, and it goes to 1:2 on its own, to 1:1 with the PN-11 extension tube. The 40 G goes to 1:1 on its own and no additional extension is required.
-
what are you trying to shoot? you did not mention anything so i am going to put whatever i can say on the subject.
those 2 macro lenses do 2 very different things :o :o :o
105mm is great for bugs because it gives you a lot of working distance so you do not scare the bugs away. it also gives you more flexibility with lighting. this is also an FX compatible lens so that if you ever decide to shoot film or go FX then this lens will still be relevant. the con is that 105mm is a bit on the long side so your pics can have a flat look.
40mm in my opinion is TOO SHORT for bug work. for full magnification of 1:1 the tip of the lens is SO CLOSE to the subject if you are shooting buys, it would have flown or dropped to the soil. lighting will also be a big challenge for that lens because you have to be so close. while it is a DX lens, many people actually use this for FX with acceptable results in the corners. this will also autofocus with your camera so it is great. now, if you are to ask me these 40-60mm macro lenses are great for food and product photography where i use them because the perspective is not as flat so that your products and food will not look small and your image will look more dynamic. now, you do not need to shoot real close when doing product and food pictures but there will be times when you will, like shoot the strawberry on a cake or in my case before, the beautiful engraving on a ring or a pearl pendant. this is also great for shooting watches (i came from a family of jewellers and watch repair/mod) because it makes the watches look "dignified" whereas a 105mm will make it look boring.
in dental photography, the best should be 60mm because it is closer to "normal" and with that focal length, you will be able to frame and see the other teeth. this is important for the laboratory so that they know which shade we are going to use for the porcelain and glaze to make the denture look like the rest of the natural teeth.
here are some of my bug pics taken with a 105mm so you can judge for yourself what a 105mm shot looks like.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/sets/72157652297115512
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/albums/72157652928071889
there are few fields of photography as dependent on lighting as macro photography so lighting should actually be your 2nd consideration. i recommend a ring flash for convenience and this is the best one i saw, cost performance wise.
http://richardhaw.com/2016/01/24/study-diffraction-on-the-105mm-vr/
and this is my writeup on the 105mm VR's diffraction effects. never mind the pictures, just read the commentaries.
you can still shoot macro photography without a true macro lens by using a reversed lens or a lens relay setup or bellows. these are very different approaches so it is out of this topic. for that i go to other dedicated macro sights like coinimaging.com and extrememacro.com (check the URL i am not sure about these)
-
She specifically listed 105/45 and 40/2.8 as alternatives., I assume for a good reason.
No need really to address the zillion of other lenses capable of making close-ups floating around out there.
If she find her requirements alter over time, suitable lens candidates are plentiful.
I got a pristine 40/2.8 GX for less than 100$ in maker's box with full paperwork. The dealer claimed it was a "demo" model, but the box was still with unbroken seal ... Makes a perfect combination on my trustworthy D2H for product shots. It also can do service via the FT-1 for my 1 Nikon cameras.
-
In many ways the 40mm is more convenient on a D60, with a great exception as already pointed out above: working distance.
Just to get a feeling how close you are at 1:1 - source: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/674-afs40f28dx (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/674-afs40f28dx)
(http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_afs_40_28_d7000/hood1.jpg)
-
Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 The nicest version is the Ais, but same optics as AI
what is different between these 2? are you referring to the handling? :o :o :o
i almost bought one this morning.
-
what is different between these 2? are you referring to the handling? :o :o :o
i almost bought one this morning.
The Ai-S is slightly slimmer and has 20° less focus throw
-
Most important the Micro Nikkor 1+5mm f/4 Ais has a focus lock so the focus unit stays put even shooting up or down
The Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8 Ais also has this
-
And another coating BTW ;)
-
isnt that a damp dial :o :o :o
-
The Ai-S is slightly slimmer and has 20° less focus throw
thank you. :o :o :o
-
isnt that a damp dial :o :o :o
No, it's for locking, if working for instance on a vertical repro-stand
-
The built-in hood on the AIS 105/4 is about twice as deep as the AI version. Very effective.
-
Hi, Ana, you seem to already have a suitable lens: you posted beautiful closeup images of your eyes and the ant.
The 105/4.0 micro should be better to shoot the kind of images mentioned above. As others noted, the working distance of 40/2.8 micro is too short for the tight close up. I uset to have a 40/2.8 but I used it as all-rounder that is more versatile than DX 35/1.8G. As a micro lens, its working distance is all-too short. The same goes with the Ai AF 60/2.8D.
The main problem of 105/4.0 micro is, as mentioned, that you cannot meter with D60. You have either to add a CPU, or to make a test shot and judge the exposure using the histogram. If you are upgrading the camera body to a model that can meter with these old MF lenses (like D7x00 series or any FX bodies), there will be no such problem.
I would think the best choice for D60 is AF-S Micro 85mm/f3.5 VR which offers fairly long working distance (about 15cm at 1:1). But if you can live with the inconvenience mentioned above, and you have to make a choice now, I would go for 105/4.0.
-
I feel a need to protest the photo at Photozone.de. To me its a no brainer, you take the hood off when moving in close.
A useful feature of a telephoto lens is the narrow background and the ability to move one's point of view to select a background that's not distracting. The AF-S 40/2.8G Micro will include a fairly wide background and though out of focus items in the background will be quite recognizable and potentially distracting. I remember this from my first film SLR lens, a 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor-P. Sometimes I'd have to give up on a subject because of an ugly background. The picture in my mind is trying to photograph a rose with unappealing bare dirt in the background. A 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor cured that problem nicely. The 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor is a 2.6x longer focal length so background selection on a DX camera will be much easier. Also the 105/4.0 offers a 26.3mm aperture v. a 14.3mm aperture for the 40/2.8 so background blurring will be better and an aid obscuring a potentially distracting background. I feel the 105/4.0 micro wins in the field. In a studio situation the background can be chosen for subjects such as food or jewelry. The working distance and therefore the perspective is a choice if you own several micro-Nikkors. In this case if the choice is either or then the type of subjects to be photograph should play a roll in that choice.
Now about extension tubes v. lenses that focus to 1:1 on their own. The latter will have to throw out a lot of free working distance to get to 1:1. I consider using a PN-11 extension tube with my 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor an advantage as that lens gives the most free working distance of any other 105mm Micro-Nikkor. The PN-11 tube is out of production and prices aren't cheap anymore but if one is on a tight budget the Nikon M2 tube can be bought for a song. A pair of M2 tubes will offer 1:0.98 or 1.02x life size.
The 105/4.0 will also offer a medium telephoto lens on a DX camera with the angle of view of a 160mm lens on FX. I still like the 55/3.5, 2.8 and 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkors as general purpose normal lenses for daylight hours so I'm sure I'd like the 40/2.8 Micro-Nikkor on DX.
I've just tossed out some ideas as without knowing what subjects Ana will be photographing I don't feel I can make a specific recommendation.
I hope this helps,
Dave
---
I took the focus "lock" off my 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor almost immediately. It really did not lock the lens and it used a metal on metal approach that did not impress me. I covered the holes with Dymo lable tape and saved the parts. I'll be buried with my 105mm Micro-Nikkors so that wasn't really necessary.
Dave
-
I feel a need to protest the photo at Photozone.de. To me its a no brainer, you take the hood off when moving in close.
Dave, the inner barrel of 40/2.8 protrudes from the outer barrel when you focus at 1:1, so taking the hood off doesn't really extend the working distance. Maybe around 1cm of gain.
-
Indeed, even without hood the working distance is very short, 35mm to be precise at 1:1
(http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll295/harres42/_DSC0159-2_zpsdbueskjv.jpg)
(http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll295/harres42/_DSC0161-2_zpsl2q3kvud.jpg)
I also quickly checked the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 AIS and it has a whopping 27cm working distance at 1:2.
With the 52.5mm extension ring PN-11 that is reduced to 16cm at 1:1.
But you get a pretty dim viewfinder for manual focusing with the extension ring.
And it is actually Ana asking the question (not me) and knows what she will use it for.
For insects I would prefer the 105mm, for extra magnification on non moving subjects the 40mm.
-
My favourite for larger insects such as butterflies always has been the 200/4 AIS Micro-Nikkor. Extremely smooth focusing and the longest working distance of them all (approx. 0.5 m at 1:2).
-
Bjørn, as you rightfully said before Ana has the choice between the 105/4 and 40/2.8, hence my advise.
Personally I use the Sigma 150/2.8 or the Nikkor 300/4 with extension ring or converter to photograph large insects.
With the PN11 and the 300/4D AFS I get to 1:2 at 75cm working distance :-)
-
With a 2000 mm f/11 Reflex-Nikkor and 2 m of extension you can get 1:1 at 4 m. Or thereabouts.
(the discussion centered on Micro-Nikkors)
-
I always recommend the 40mm DX lens for general purpose plus close-up use. It's more useful for general photo use than a lens that's going to have a narrow angle, telephoto effect.
-
I always recommend the 40mm DX lens for general purpose plus close-up use. It's more useful for general photo use than a lens that's going to have a narrow angle, telephoto effect.
Not for nature photography ...
If the desire is to take wildlife photos, it's the 40mm which is next to useless within this context.
A telephoto macro lens (I agree with Bjørn) is the preferred choice.
In that capacity, I think the newer Sigma 180mm is a better choice than the Nikkor 200mm, overall. The two are comparable image-quality and range-wise.
However, if you ever need the IS, and a faster AF, the Sigma excels here ... whereas the elder Nikkor doesn't have them.
I did a review (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/entry.php?13) on macro lenses for wildlife field photography.
Jack
PS: If you're into extreme macro, with the use of flash, then the ratings would be different. This article assumes the reader is actually out in the field, under varying conditions, trying to capture a natural image, with available light, as opposed to shooting photos of flowers (or garden subjects), in controlled settings, such as in his backyard or home studio.
-
My favourite for larger insects such as butterflies always has been the 200/4 AIS Micro-Nikkor. Extremely smooth focusing and the longest working distance of them all (approx. 0.5 m at 1:2).
Bjørn, I am curious how you would compare the 200/4 AIS Micro-Nikkor to the Voigtländer125mm f/2.5.
I know you have the latter, and am curious if you've ever compared it to the Nikkor 200mm.
Jack
.
-
Personally I use the Sigma 150/2.8 or the Nikkor 300/4 with extension ring or converter to photograph large insects.
With the PN11 and the 300/4D AFS I get to 1:2 at 75cm working distance :-)
We agree.
The Sigma 180 f/2.8 is a better lens than the Sigma 150 f/2.8, but they are similar.
Nonetheless, I recently got rid of my Sigma 180 f/2.8 in favor of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II as a field lens (better stats than any macro lens on the planet + can be converted to 1:2, as you said, by slapping on an extension tube, still retaining excellent stats).
For 1:1, I became intrigued by the Voigtländer 125mm f2.5 Apo-Lanthar, thanks to Michael Erlewine, and am enjoying this for static 1:1 macro shooting, where quick-action isn't called for, but where I can take my time and compose the shot.
For beyond 1:1, I am now reversing some "old school" Nikkor lenses (50mm, 35mm, 28mm, and 20mm), for 1.1x, 1.8x, 2.1x, and 3.4x macro shots, respectively, but these are for tiny subjects that don't move, as the focus distance with reverse-lens shooting is minuscule.
-
Nonetheless, I recently got rid of my Sigma 180 f/2.8 in favor of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II as a field lens (better stats than any macro lens on the planet + can be converted to 1:2, as you said, by slapping on an extension tube, still retaining excellent stats).
I would question that swap.
You will need significant more extension to get your 300/2.8VR (MFD 2.2m - 0.16x) to 1:2 vs. my 300/4 (MFD 1.45m - 0.27x), if you ever reach it at all.
In any case I hope Ana is not discouraged to react to some advise here after all the masculine gear show off.
-
A true telephoto optical design respond poorer to added extension. Besides, the change in effective aperture as you focus closer, will be more dramatic with these optics.
-
And the micro-Nikkor 105mm/4 is not a telephoto design.
Myself prefer a short focal length for most of my closup works. The different 55mm micro -Nikkors are my favorites to about 1:2 as also are the limits for them without extension tubes, then the short working distances are of no trouble. From 1:2 to 1:1, I prefer longer focal length where 105mm works well for me.
-
Hello again! :)
Boys, I'm really happy that all of you tried to help me! I was following your comments with pure joy (even though I didn't really understand everything :D). Thank you very much for your time and shared knowledge and experience!
Now, I have an obligation to choose well, but reading your advices and critiques, I realised that the best decision is to make an effort to gain both of lenses (not really modest, right? :D)
In any case, I hope you will see products of that decision on this forum :)
Greetings!
-
Billie Jean - sometimes all of the above is the right answer :D
-
Now about extension tubes v. lenses that focus to 1:1 on their own. The latter will have to throw out a lot of free working distance to get to 1:1. I consider using a PN-11 extension tube with my 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor an advantage as that lens gives the most free working distance of any other 105mm Micro-Nikkor. The PN-11 tube is out of production and prices aren't cheap anymore but if one is on a tight budget the Nikon M2 tube can be bought for a song. A pair of M2 tubes will offer 1:0.98 or 1.02x life size.
My feeling is that 1:1 on a macro lens is less important on DX format than FX. An FX lens at 1:1 will frame a 24x36mm area, a DX lens only needs to get to 2:3 to frame the same subject. Or put the other way, an DX lens will frame 16x24mm at 1:1, an FX lens will need 1.5x magnification to frame the same area.
Therefore, I don't regard the 1:2 magnification of the 105/4 micro as a serious disadvantage, 1:1 on this format is overfill for most purposes unless you are into shooting really small bugs and flowers. The magnification of the 105/4 can be extended easily using a 3T or 4T closeup lens, or using a PK-13 which gives quite a useful 1:4 - 3:4 macro range.
However, lack of metering with the D60 is a serious disadvantage. You will need to use an external light meter and take into account the loss of light due to extension. Or guess the exposure and then review the results on the LCD, adjust the exposure (by varying the shutter speed, ISO or aperture) and shoot again until you get the exposure right. This is only really practical for slow-paced shooting in controlled conditions, eg from a tripod with stable lighting.
The choice really depends on what you shoot. For casual closeups, the 40/2.8 will be a more convenient choice. However, the various 18-55 kit zooms all get to about 1:3 magnification, which is perfectly good for general closeups. If you have one of these lying about, I suggest trying this first.
If you want to get really close - "The only thing I think about is how to take a photo as close as possible ..." - then the 40/2.8 will do it, but the working distance is really too short to be useful. The 105/4 gives you much more working distance, it's an excellent lens, but no metering.
So, neither of the options are ideal. Other options are:
- AFS DX 85/3.5 micro - similar to the 40/2.8 but with much longer working distance. Relatively affordable.
- AF 105/2.8 micro - will not AF with the D60 but will support metering. Relatively affordable on the used market.
- Upgrade to a D7000, D7100 or D7200 - these cameras will meter with AI lenses like the 105/4 micro, and have improved sensors compared to the D60
I know this is goes outside your original question, but sometimes it is useful to step back and look at other options first...
-
Getting the manual 105/4 Micro. then have it chipped to work with the D60 is also an alternative.
I think many here forget that the D60 isn't graced with the best of viewfinders. Thus the ability to do AF in a pinch should be regarded as an additional asset.
-
I would question that swap.
You will need significant more extension to get your 300/2.8VR (MFD 2.2m - 0.16x) to 1:2 vs. my 300/4 (MFD 1.45m - 0.27x), if you ever reach it at all.
Well, it depends on your goals.
I do a lot of lizards, snakes, etc., and for animals like that, there are 100x more opportunities to use a 300mm than a 180mm.
When I see a butterfly, I don't necessarily need the exact mathematical figure of 1:2 if I use an extender ;)
What I do know is the resolution, color, CA scores of the Nikon 300mm II are several notches above the Nikon macro lenses, so cropping an image from the 300mm still produces better results than full images at 1:2 from the 60mm.
If I need to go in closer than what the 300mm can do, and don't need VR or AF, then I use the Voightlander 125.
My curiosity, however, is how the Nikkor 200mm stacks up to the Voightlander 125, image-wise.
I like my Voightlander, but the lack of a tripod collar I find to be a major hindrance to many wildlife compositions. (When you're in a studio, you can adjust/compose all you want ... so you can get by without a tripod collar ... whereas, with wildlife, you have to adjust your camera to fit the reality you're dealt with ... and a tripod collar is an extremely valuable tool, which the Nikkor 200mm has, where the rest of the mentioned alternatives do not). And it is supposed to be an extremely-sharp lens.
-
Provided your camera is supported with a sturdy L-bracket, there is absolutely no need to have a tripod mount on the CV 125 itself. Besides, the lens is neither long nor heavy enough to warrant such support anyway.
Your comment makes me wonder if your tripod is up to the task.
As to the 200/4 ED-IF vs 125 CV: the 200 certainly is sharp, but lacks the wonderful bokeh quality of the 125. Plus the chromatic correction of the 125 is better as indicated by its being an APO lens.
The 200/4 Micro IF (non-ED) wins only on its buttery smooth focusing and long working distance vs the 125 CV. Optically speaking it is no match at all. But still sharp enough for most purposes provided you do a CA removal in the RAW processing work flow.
-
Dave, the inner barrel of 40/2.8 protrudes from the outer barrel when you focus at 1:1, so taking the hood off doesn't really extend the working distance. Maybe around 1cm of gain.
With lenses that go to 1:1 on their own even a centimeter helps. :) I really prefer the old lenses that used an extension tube to get to 1:1.
Dave
---
In case this was missed the Nikon M2 tube is really inexpensive. Two of them will bring to 105/4.0 AI or AIS Micro-Nikkor to a fraction over life size. The Nikon M2 tube also fits cameras like the D300s and D800 as the back edge of the barrel is beveled and misses the meter coupling lever.
---
Flash metering before TTL: I used to setup a lens at the image ratio I wanted, say 1:2 and focus on the receptor of my flash meter. I'd pop an open flash and use a chart for the lens to correct for the effective aperture. Without changing the image ratio I could photograph all I wanted. If the subject was in focus the flash setting didn't change. This is quite easy and more accurate that TTL flash metering.
---
I hope the Ana returns and gives some more input on what sort of subjects she wants to photograph. If she as the 35-40mm focal length covered with other lenses for general photograph I'd lean to the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor. If she want to get to 1:1 M2 tubes can be had in excellent condition for as little as $3.00 (USD) while the PN-11 in excellent is about $90.00 (USD).
Dave
-
Provided your camera is supported with a sturdy L-bracket, there is absolutely no need to have a tripod mount on the CV 125 itself. Besides, the lens is neither long nor heavy enough to warrant such support anyway.
Your comment makes me wonder if your tripod is up to the task.
My tripod (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/TVC-33-Versa-series-3-3-sections-leg) is as good as it gets.
Your comments make me wonder about your subject matter (inanimate objects) versus animals ...
I have an L-bracket, and these let you do perfectly-horizontal, and perfecetly-vertical, compositions ... but what about angles that are inbetween perfectly-vertical and perfectly-horizontal :o
It's not just "the weight" which warrants a tripod-collar, it's the infinite-rotated positions, instantly available, that a tripod collar lets you achieve.
If I see a butterfly in a cockeyed, 35° position on a bent piece of grass ... neither perfectly-vertical, nor perfectly-horizontal, positions are going to get me what I want.
Worse, if my subject is highly-agitated, it may fly away in a second or two, so I don't have all day to pluck my camera off the tripod, flip it vertically, reattach, and re-compose my shot (with an L-bracket).
A tripod collar allows me to re-compose in a fraction of a second, compared to a cumbersome L-bracket, and I don't make a bunch of hand-movements either, which can scare away flighty subjects, which gives me no image at all.
As to the 200/4 ED-IF vs 125 CV: the 200 certainly is sharp, but lacks the wonderful bokeh quality of the 125. Plus the chromatic correction of the 125 is better as indicated by its being an APO lens.
Thanks for the perspective.
The 200/4 Micro IF (non-ED) wins only on its buttery smooth focusing and long working distance vs the 125 CV. Optically speaking it is no match at all. But still sharp enough for most purposes provided you do a CA removal in the RAW processing work flow.
Again, much appreciated, thank you.
I can live without the AF of the V-125 and can deal with the lack of reach also, because I really do enjoy its image quality.
However, the lack of a tripod collar is one thing I do miss immensely.
Again, it's not the "weight" of the lens, it's the positioning of it, composition-wise, immediately, that makes it so valuable on a wildlife macro lens.
If the V-125 had a tripod collar, it would be perfect IMO.
-
John, can't you tilt the head of your tripod to achieve the desired angle?
-
I've been shooting close-ups of nature, static or non-static, for many decades. I don't miss a tripod collar on the CV 125 and repeat that this is not a lens big enough to have a separate collar. Its focusing accuracy is set by the long focus throw of 630 degrees. If one should add a rotating collar to such a compact lens, the long focus throw would suffer as there is really no place available to put that collar without cutting down on the helicoid itself.
Having a tripod with maximum versatility makes for the better results in close-up photography. There is besides a wealth of difference in composition going from landscape to portrait mode, so recomposing the frame is mandatory anyway. Just flipping the camera over will not suffice.
-
John, can't you tilt the head of your tripod to achieve the desired angle?
Not from its original position.
If I set my camera/tripod combo perfectly ... but decide I want to tilt my camera and re-compose without a tripod collar ... if I am filling the frame with a macro shot, tilting my camera takes the subject out of my viewfinder. I now have to move my tripod.
It is a lot easier to re-compose/tilt by twisting a knob and using a tripod collar. Everything remains where it is, I just twist my wrist and I am ready again.
The collar has nothing to do with weight, it has to do with ease-of-composition, from where you stand.
Without the collar, you have to take your camera off, flip to the other side of the L-Bracket, move your tripod, etc.
It is simply slower and more cumbersome without a tripod collar.
Jack
-
I've been shooting close-ups of nature, static or non-static, for many decades. I don't miss a tripod collar on the CV 125 and repeat that this is not a lens big enough to have a separate collar. Its focusing accuracy is set by the long focus throw of 630 degrees. If one should add a rotating collar to such a compact lens, the long focus throw would suffer as there is really no place available to put that collar without cutting down on the helicoid itself.
Having a tripod with maximum versatility makes for the better results in close-up photography. There is besides a wealth of difference in composition going from landscape to portrait mode, so recomposing the frame is mandatory anyway. Just flipping the camera over will not suffice.
If the 125 were constructed to accommodate a collar, it would be ideal.
All of the "serious," highest-end macro lenses have them: the Nikkor 200 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66989-USA/Nikon_1989_Telephoto_AF_Micro_Nikkor.html), the Sigma 180 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/837871-REG/Sigma_180mm_f_2_8_APO_Macro.html), the Canon 180 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112541-USA/Canon_2539A007_Telephoto_EF_180mm_f_3_5L.html), and the Canon MP-E 65 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html).
The other, "low-end" macro lenses (40-105) are designed to be hand-held ... which is why they don't need collars.
By contrast, the tripod-designed macro lenses all have collars ... not because of the weight, but for the reasons stated above in my prior post.
Cheers.
-
The other, "low-end" macro lenses (40-105) are designed to be hand-held ...
I wonder why you think that. Did Nikon state that?
-
If the 125 were constructed to accommodate a collar, it would be ideal.
All of the "serious," highest-end macro lenses have them: the Nikkor 200 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66989-USA/Nikon_1989_Telephoto_AF_Micro_Nikkor.html), the Sigma 180 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/837871-REG/Sigma_180mm_f_2_8_APO_Macro.html), the Canon 180 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112541-USA/Canon_2539A007_Telephoto_EF_180mm_f_3_5L.html), and the Canon MP-E 65 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html).
The other, "low-end" macro lenses (40-105) are designed to be hand-held ... which is why they don't need collars.
By contrast, the tripod-designed macro lenses all have collars ... not because of the weight, but for the reasons stated above in my prior post.
Cheers.
This assertion is not in accordance with practice. To put it mildly.
Designating the 40-105 mm range of Micro-Nikkors "low-end" is about as far off the mark you can possibly get.
-
The original poster mentions close-up photography, and the need to be close. Apparently we can’t have everything in a close-up/macro lens, otherwise we would already have it and obviously we don’t.
Back in my “field-guide photography” years, when I was trying to shoot images that were field-guide quality “in the field,” I used just about every lens out there I could fit on a Nikon, and rather extensively at that, including the following lens:
No one has mentioned the Micro-Nikkor 70mm-180mm AF f/4.5-5.6 D, the only Micro-Nikkor that is a zoom, has auto-focus, and also has a rotating collar (300 degrees). For a beginning close-up photographer, the 70mm-180mm is very easy to use, zooms, is sharp, rotates, reaches almost to life-size at 180mm, has a 9-blade diaphragm and so on. Also, this lens maintains a constant aperture throughout its entire focus range.
And this lens, like the CV-125, has its own special draw or character that is almost film-like. No, I don’t use my copy of this lens these years, but I used to and I loved it. Only my growing sophistication forced me out of it. For a beginner, it is perfect IMO. Just my two-cents.
-
You are aware of the price difference here, I hope,,, ::) ;)
-
You are aware of the price difference here, I hope,,, ::) ;)
Are you addressing me or some earlier post? The 70mm-180mm Micro-Nikkor costs about $1,000, and we have been talking about lenses like the CV-125 that cost much more.
-
Concerning 105mm Micro-Nikkors of the Late Film Age: the matched PN-11 (52.5mm) extension tube has a very nice tripod collar. The foot print is tiny but this isn't a problem when it's installed on a Wimberley P-10/P-20 or similar Arca-Swiss style lens plate. It's not very stable on rubber or cork found on many tripod heads. The block of aluminum between the Nikon PN-11 and Wimberley P-10 plate gives room to install an older Kirkphoto macro flash arm under the fat 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/662/21650205452_55d6e5e19b_m.jpg/) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/662/21650205452_55d6e5e19b_b.jpg/)
On a modest budget the Wimberley C-30 Quick Release Clamp makes a nice macro slider. It's about 107mm long. Really Right Stuff makes some really nice macro accessories but they are out of my budget.
(http://www.tripodhead.com/images/C-30-2-details.jpg) (http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images500x500/Wimberley_C_30_C_30_Quick_Release_Clamp_1273095045000_205331.jpg)
Please buy one of the Wimberley C-30 clamps because some years ago I asked Wimberley not to discontinue the C-30 and they said they wouldn't. I think I own three of them.
Dave
I'm not associated with Wimberley, Really Right Stuff or Kirk Enterprises. I am a satisfied customer of all three.