NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: aerobat on February 23, 2021, 05:53:43
-
I've been looking for a longer Micro lens compared to my AF-S 60mm Micro. I wanted to check out the Nikon lenses first. As AF isn't important for my mcaro work I more interested to get the bette optical quality between the AIs and AF. Which one do you guys prefer?
Are there any other brands in the region of 150mm to 200mm to consider?
-
The 200/4 AI/AIS is lightweight and even appears small compared to the AF 200/4 Micro ED. However, the nod for image quality goes to the latter.
The Sigma 150mm f/2.8 is about the same size as the 200/4 ED and likewise has very good image quality. As to its robustness I cannot tell as I only used it a few times. The 200 ED is a true "field lens" and can withstand field challenges with aplomb.
The only issue with the 200ED apart from its age is the A/M ring which can break from a hairline crack. This was a common issue with several Nikkors of the same vintage.
-
I have used the Sigma apo macro 150mm few years and I was satisfied about sharpness, colour, image quality handling.
AF was efficient although I didn't use it very often for macro work.
I tried it for landscape but it was surpassed by my CV 125mm f/2.5
I finally re sold it because no point to keep 2 similar specialised lenses.
In my opinion, this Sigma is still one of the best long macro lenses in the market.
Some samples bellow :
Francis.
-
Glad to learn others found the Sigma 150/2.8 appealing.
-
Armando (armando_m) has posted some excellent images shot with SIGMA 150/2.8 (non OS version).
-
To the OP. There are 3-4 independent 150mm macro lens manufacturers, including Sigma, Iris, Viltrox, some more. The market is full of such glass. Do not make a rush, just try all of them, if possible, of course. There are a lot of tests and topics on that matter. Good luck! LZ
-
several people mentioned that the 200ais isnt as sharp as it should. what a shame, could have been a great lens. :o :o :o
hope i win the junk being auctioned ::)
-
The 200 ai or Ais with a 3T or 4T is a great combination and gives lots of working space.
-
The 200mm f/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor came in an AI and an AIS version. The lens collar of the AI version place the lens at a slight angle pointing downward. I find this quite incontinent. If buying a 200mm f/4.0 IF I would only buy the AIS version.
Nikon recommended using a TC-300 teleconverter for focusing closer than 1/2 life size. I found the TC-300 and 300/4.5 ED-IF very unstable and required two tripods. Without two tripods a gap opened between the TC-300 and 300/4.5 ED-IF when a Nikon F2 was used (no motor drive!). I traded the TC-300 within a week and never used it with a 200/4.0 IF Micro. I'm sure a lens cradle would be required and that angle on the 200/4.0 IF lens collar would cause problems.
I tried extension tubes but can't say how good the optical performance was. It's only air right? Moving the 200/4.0 IF Micro that far from the film plane may cause optical problems. I limited my use of the 200/4.0 IF Micro to 1/2 life size. Probably a TC-3 or TC-4 close-up lens would be a better choice than extension tubes but then the free working distance is compromised.
If you look at the 200/4.0 IF Micro it looks like a paper towel tube. The 52mm front attachment dictates an entrance pupil that is too small. The result is significant vignetting when using the 200/4.0 IF Micro as conventional 200mm telephoto at f/4.0. For me stopping down to at least f/5.6 is mandatory. In this respect the 200/4.0 IF Micro is not like the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor which can stand in for a 105/2.5 AIS.
In summary the 200/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor is a beautiful lens in many ways but I find it less than desirable at distance and f/4.0 and at image ratios greater than 1:2 (half life size). For me it cannot stand in for a 200/4.0 conventional telephoto or for a 180/2.8 ED. The 200/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor should have had a 62mm front element and ED glass. I haven't use my 200/4.0 IF AI much since I bought a 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED Micro-Nikkor.
Dave
-
Many thanks for all the inputs - much appreciated.
Thanks for the superb photos Francis.
-
I had both Nikkors: the Micro 200mm/4 Ai and Ai-s. The advantage is the compact size compared to the magnificent Nikkor 200/4 AF-D. The problem with the Ai and Ai-s was the presence of lots of LoCa. And the AF-D is very close to the APO status...
So in the end I stayed with my 200/4 AF-D ;)
-
You're very welcome, Daniel ! ;)
-
I used the AIS 200/4 micro for many years when shooting film. I never found any reason to complain about its sharpness at close range or far distances. I remember doing a brief comparison with my non-macro AIS 200/4 at far distances and couldn't see any difference in the results - sharpness was the same and I don't remember seeing any dramatic differences in vignetting. That was using film, I guess more sensitive digital sensors would make any differences clearer.
This lens is built to be used on a tripod, it has one of the best tripod mounts of any lens, especially the AIS version, the AI version has a narrower tripod collar so is not quite as solid. In fact I don't remember ever shooting it hand-held, with the tripod collar removed it is not heavy but the focus ring is inconveniently placed far to the front making it difficult to hold the camera/lens steady. I mostly used this lens for closeups with or without a no 3T closeup filter and/or PK-13 extension tube. And I mostly used it stopped well down for greater DoF so I don't have much experience with performance at wider apertures, or at far distances. But at close range the performance was always excellent, and the extra long working distance is wonderful.
I have not used it much on digital cameras, mostly because I have had less time for dedicated macro photography, and I guess its poorer reputation put me off too, but the pictures I have taken with my D600 seem fine. I have not compared it with the AF ED version which is much bigger and much more expensive.
-
...I don't remember seeing any dramatic differences in vignetting.
As I remember vignetting of the 200/4.0 IF Micro was not an issue close-up, rather at normal distance and out to infinity. I wanted a 200mm close-up lens that doubled as a standard 200mm telephoto.
I'm guessing to much here but I think stopping to f/5.6 is quite helpful and f/8.0 fixes the problem.
I mostly used this lens for closeups with or without a no 3T closeup filter and/or PK-13 extension tube.
I made a lens cradle to use the 200/4.0 IF Micro with a PN-11. Due to the angle of the AI version's tripod collar I could not tighten the system too firmly. I can't remember specifically but I probably didn't tighten the PN-11 collar fully. I may have use a 1/32" automotive gasket material on the leading edge of the lens tripod collar to align the group better and reduce binding. Anyway I will only recommend the AIS version.
The problem with the Ai and Ai-s was the presence of lots of LoCa.
Using Panorama Tools with Photoshop 7 cleans up the CA issue completely or pretty well. (I'm going on memory here :). I can't remember developing NEF from my 200/4.0 IF Micro with Capture NX-D. NO SUCH LUCK: The cleanup today might be automatic in CNX-D. I need to give the 200/4.0 IF Micro a spin on my D850.
My feelings towards the 200/4.0 IF Micro are generally good. Focusing with the If was great, just a touch with the finger tip was all that was needed. Portability of this lens is great.
Dave
---
I forgot this (4T v. TC300/301)...
"It's much better, and simpler, to use the close-up lens 4T for attaining this magnification. Note however that 4T must be mounted in a reverse position in order to give good image quality (the AF Micro 105 behaves in the same way). This is easily achieved by mounting 4T onto a 52/52 mm thread reversal ring." --http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html
"The reason why reversal gives better quality is likely linked to improved control of spherical aberration. Alternatively, the close-up lens is designed to correct field curvature, but a Micro-Nikkor is designed as a flat-field lens so adding a close-up lens might overcorrect thus creating unsharp corners. Try out for yourself." --http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html
There is a wealth of information at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html I've consulted these pages many times before buying a lens.
Dave
A thousand candles burn out, still I edit my post!
-
I have an older Sigma 150mm f/2.8 AF Macro, not the optically stabilized newer version. It makes very nice images but no longer autofocuses on my D4, doe autofocus on my D500 and never autofocused on my Z6 with FTZ Adapter. Used to work fine on the D4 but a Nikon Firmware update seems to have stopped that :-)
While auto-focus may not be useful to many, I liked having it.
-
I just did a quick and dirty investigation of color fringing with the 200mm f/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor on my D850. A careful test is not indicated. Red-Green color fringing outside of prime focus with the raw lens at 1:2 is unpleasant and color fringing is worse with a reversed Nikon 4T close up lens. The target was a scared brash garden hose nozzle. The subject was back lite and the light was somewhat softened sunlight coming through a translucent deck cover. The color fringing was observed in the center of the frame. The fringing was red before and green after prime focus. ***I'd appreciate someone with more technical knowledge commenting.***
With Nikon's Capture NX-D, Axial Color Aberration correction feature set to 100 the color fringing is mitigated some but not nearly enough. This is a deal breaker for me. I will not be using the 200/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor for close-up photography with my D850.
Performance at a distance of 2.5 meters seems good. I'll have to do more testing. Ken Rockwell's vignette test show vignetting wide open at infinity and something like 1.5 meters of about what I remember or less. It's not hard in the corners like a 50/1.2 AIS Nikkor at f/1.2. I would think it is correctable and stopping down to f/5.6 reduces it to a level that shouldn't bother me. The transition is soft enough that it might serve to center the eye on the center of the frame. I often use Photoshop's Lens Distortion Correction, Vignette Feature to give a subtle false lens vignette to place emphasis on the primary subject.
This is the first time the 200/4.0 IF Micro has been out of storage in a long time. The last time was when my D800 was new and I only remember shooting subjects at a distance of maybe 2 meters and greater. If the price is right the 200/4.0 IF Micro may make a pleasing 200mm f/4.0 general use telephoto. The IF focus is as slick as I remember it.
Again I won't be using this lens for close-up to macro with my D850. I hope someone will give the 200/4.0 IF Micro a spin on a modern Nikon DSLR and confirm that I'm not talking trash. ???
Dave
-
Your analysis tallies with mine, Dave :)
-
Thank you.
-
That being said, I have had some acceptable captures using the 200/4 Micro in a photomacrographic relay system (with infinity-corrected objektives in front). The AFD ED Micro does better, though, but also is more awkward and cumbersome on occasion due to its size and heft.
-
It's worse: even in filtered sunlight at 2.0~2.5 meters a chrome rod holding a cockatoo's play tray want's a little help from the Axial Color Aberration tool in CNX-D. Stopping down from f/4.0 to f/8 helps but still the Axial Color Aberration tool is needed. I already have to use the Axial Color Aberration tool with all photos from my AF-S 105/2.8 ED VR Micro. The ACA tool isn't a panacea: it dulls colors in an image.
Just considering the lenses I own my 180/2.8 ED AIS eats the 200/4.0 IF Micro's lunch as a mid range telephoto and the AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED Micro does that at close-up to 1/2 life size. The sad truth is my Nikon D850 doesn't like my 200/4.0 IF Micro.
Dave
-
It's a pity it wasn't made as a 180/4 ED-IF micro instead. Shortening the focal length slightly would mean the entrance pupil shrinks to 45mm, the front element could be oversized to reduce vignetting and still fit comfortably within the 52mm filter. And ED glass would have reduced CA, but in those days ED glass was much more expensive and CA is less of a problem on film.
The old 200/4 micro is still capable of good images, but best to avoid subjects CA will be obvious.
-
The old 200/4 micro is still capable of good images, but best to avoid subjects CA will be obvious.
Is the Nikon D850 and also the Z7 II too brutally high resolution for the 200/4.0 IF Micro? I'm wondering if the D800 with its low pass filter was a bit kinder.
The idea of a 180/4.0 ED-IF Micro is a great one. Does anyone have a time machine available? :D
Dave
-
Maybe one of the nice 105mm micro Nikkors could be an option instead of a 200mm?
105mm is still a lot longer than 60mm......
-
Is the Nikon D850 and also the Z7 II too brutally high resolution for the 200/4.0 IF Micro? I'm wondering if the D800 with its low pass filter was a bit kinder.
The idea of a 180/4.0 ED-IF Micro is a great one. Does anyone have a time machine available? :D
Dave
No, I had the LoCa problems also on the D800E, the Df and the D600.
-
The latest AFS 105mm f/2.8 ED IF VR can be very troublesome with pronounced colour aberrations.
-
Is the Nikon D850 and also the Z7 II too brutally high resolution for the 200/4.0 IF Micro? I'm wondering if the D800 with its low pass filter was a bit kinder.
The idea of a 180/4.0 ED-IF Micro is a great one. Does anyone have a time machine available? :D
Dave
I recall that the 180mm f/2.8 ED Ais should do quite well on a PN11 extension ring, added bonus is that it has decent tripod collar as well
-
The 180ED + PN-11 is a very nice combination, however one is locked to approx. 1:3 magnification.
I quickly replace the AFS 105/2.8 Micro with the Voigtländer 125/2.5. At present I'm eagerly awaiting the 105 Micro in native Z mount and do hope Nikon finally got their act together.
-
Maybe one of the nice 105mm micro Nikkors could be an option instead of a 200mm?
105mm is still a lot longer than 60mm......
The reason a person would want a 200mm close up lens is for the free working distance for example when photographing shy insects. The insect has a comfort zone. When you get too close it flies away. If it's a frog it jumps, etc.
Which reminds me of an article in once read by B. F. Skinner where he explained how to swat a fly. Hold your hand over the fly. Slowly lower your hand until the fly squats. At this point you have reached the outer limit of the fly's comfort zone. Stop. If you move your hand closer the fly will jump and fly away. Without lifting your hand for extra speed and impact immediately bring your hand down on the fly. Your success rate will be quite high. If however you lift your hand slightly for extra speed and impact you will alert the fly and it will jump and fly to safety. Try it! It works! You may wish to wash your hand after your experiment.
I really hoped the 200/4.0 IF Micro would work out but even with the Axial Color Aberration correction it's a no go.
Dave
-
Maybe one of the nice 105mm micro Nikkors could be an option instead of a 200mm?
105mm is still a lot longer than 60mm......
As Dave writes, 200mm gives you more working distance.
However, this is often not the case for internal focusing designs - specially not up close where the 'focus breathing' of the optics loose focal length.
Not all IF designs do,, just see the long debate on this for the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S zooms where the lenses behave very different from each other.
So a unit focusing lens is often preferred for macro work when working distance is important.
This is why I love the 105mm f/4 Ais Micro Nikkor. Often the best compromise.
-
Many thanks for the lively discussion. Actually I willl use the Macro lens on a D850.
As I found out many of the Macro lenses > 100mm aren't easily available on the market.
The Sigma's e.g. are currently out of stock everywhere. Maybe settling on a 100mm-ish lens is the solution.
Did anyone try the Tamron 90mm? This seems to be quite a nice lens.
-
"The Sigma's e.g. are currently out of stock everywhere"
On the amazon.co.uk site there are 2 used ones for sale at >€450
"Did anyone try the Tamron 90mm? This seems to be quite a nice lens"
I owned a MF version back in the 1980's and loved it. :o
-
In this test the Nikkor 105 VR does not deserve to be called a "Nikkor"?
Or what is going on?
The Sony is best and the Laowa probably the best if price is considered......
https://petapixel.com/2020/04/15/macro-lens-test-canon-nikon-sony-laowa-sigma-and-tamron-compared/
-
I'm not surprised. The AFS 105 Micro ED is not my favourite Micro-Nikkor -- to say the least. My results with that lens echo those reported in the linked report. I sold it off after a few months of ownership.
The 100mm f/2.8 LAOWA is very good, if you can live with a manual focus lens and its very short working distance as magnification goes to 1:1 and beyond. NO CPU is a downside but once C-19 situation improves I hope Erik can assist me in "chipping" the LAOWA. We joined forces on getting the legendary CV 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar "chipped" and the challenges were quickly sorted by "Dr. Lens".
-
If I should say something positive about the 105 VR then when looking at the f8 image the contrast is lower but still the resolution can be high?
The small "round" thing at the right in the image seems to be reproduced best by the Nikkor? ....more gray-tones?
The f2.8 image is bad......
-
The idea of a 180/4.0 ED-IF Micro is a great one. Does anyone have a time machine available? :D
I recall that Nikon did have a patent for such a lens, not sure if it was AF or MF. It would be nice to have a more compact telephoto macro, the recent 150 - 200mm macros from various manufacturers have had a max aperture of f/3.5 or f/2.8, so are relatively large lenses. For macro work, generally f/4 is more than adequate.
Not a macro lens but the Voigtländer SL 180mm f/4 APO Lanthar focuses very close for a lens of this type. Adding a closeup lens should give it more or less macro capabilities. A pity it is so rare and expensive. Lack of a tripod collar is also an issue; the lens is not heavy but working from a tripod greatly improves handling for macro work.
-
I made a quick test shot with Micro-Nikkor 200/4 AI on Z50 at closets distance (0.7m) at f4.
The whole frame and then a 100% crop. I removed as much of the CA I could using NX-D and there are not much left. So lens can produce a useful image......even at f4?
The light was just a flash direct at the watch.
-
As Dave writes, 200mm gives you more working distance.
However, this is often not the case for internal focusing designs - specially not up close where the 'focus breathing' of the optics loose focal length.
Not all IF designs do,, just see the long debate on this for the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S zooms where the lenses behave very different from each other.
So a unit focusing lens is often preferred for macro work when working distance is important.
This is why I love the 105mm f/4 Ais Micro Nikkor. Often the best compromise.
The 300/4.5 ED-IF AI with PN-11, PK-13, PK-12 and full built in focus as **suggested by John Shaw gives an image magnification 0.5x (1:2) with a free working distance of 962mm. (a Lens cradle is indicated) **John may have only recommended a PK-13 or a PN-11. I don't remember.
The 200/4.0 IF AI with no tubes or close-up lenses offers an image magnification of 0.5x and a free working distance of 495mm.
The AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 at 180mm offers an image ratio of 0.5x and a free working distance of only 244mm. (This is good example of what Eric Lund writes concerning IF designs. 244mm at 1:2 is not what one would expect from a conventional or unit focusing 180mm lens.)
—
I probably wrote this for a discussion at Photo.Net's Nikon Forum (in a previous life)...
There are two manual focus 105mm Micro-Nikkors: an f/2.8 and an f/4.0. You should consider both. The 105/2.8 AIS Micro makes a good general purpose 105 and macro. As far the change in focal length I estimated it at 92mm for the 105/2.8 Micro but the lenses has CRC and change in focal length seems complex. Notice the free working distance of the 105/4.0 v. 105/2.8 at 1:2 and 1:1. The 105/4.0 AI or AIS Micro-Nikkor is probably the better and certainly the easier lens to use for more serious close-up and macro photography.
Here is a table of free working distance that in includes the 105mm Micros...
Lens, 1:2 followed by 1:1...
55/3.5 Compensating
110mm
55mm
55/3.5 AI
111mm
56mm
55/2.8 AIS
113mm
56mm
60/2.8 AF
122mm
73mm
105/2.8D AF (not my measurement)
---
136mm
105/2.8 AIS
244mm
173mm
105/4.0 AI (& AIS)
277mm (The best at 1:2 of this table)
172mm
All measurements are mine except for the AF 105/2.8D Micro-Nikkor. That measurement came from the Nikon brochure Nikon World of Close-up Photography, 1994. Notice that the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor has the best free working distance at 1:2 by a comfortable margin and is virtually tied for best at 1:1 with the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.
I have no experience with the 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikkor. If you can afford the 85/2.8 PC you can very likely afford both the 85/2.8 PC and 105/4.0 AI or AIS. The latter can be had for a very reasonable price.
Hope this helps,
Dave Hartman.
-
I made a quick test shot with Micro-Nikkor 200/4 AI on Z50 at closets distance (0.7m) at f4.
The whole frame and then a 100% crop. I removed as much of the CA I could using NX-D and there are not much left. So lens can produce a useful image......even at f4?
The light was just a flash direct at the watch.
Perhaps more testing will reveal a use for my old friend, the 200/4.0 IF Micro? It appeares that I chose a worst case for my tests yesterday.
-
Yes, it was the AI version of the 200/4.0 IF micro.
-
I tried the same quick test using AFS 105/2.8 micro set at full aperture (it shows 4.8 ). It only shows 2.8 at infinity but lens was set full open.
First image the full frame and the second a 100% crop. I think the "o" in Roamer shows some sharpness. Watch and lens was not parallel.
This lens has to be stopped down a bit to get sharp images. Maybe fine for portraits full open but then the CA can be a problem.
-
Stopped down to f9 it is a bit better but not the best lens for 1:1 macro work.
Images looks better at longer distances and seems to have less CA.
-
To give a bit of credit to the 105/2.8 VR an image at a bit longer distance at f9.
The CA is much less. The lens does not like metallic reflections where highlights are blown out. It will create CA around the edge.
-
To give a bit of credit to the 105/2.8 VR an image at a bit longer distance at f9.
The CA is much less. The lens does not like metallic reflections where highlights are blown out. It will create CA around the edge.
Specular reflections like from watches and other metal are troublesome with a lot of lenses. Soft lighting is a way around this issue.
-
I probably wrote this for a discussion at Photo.Net's Nikon Forum (in a previous life)...
Wow, I'm sure I remember that post!
Notice that the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor has the best free working distance at 1:2 by a comfortable margin and is virtually tied for best at 1:1 with the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.
The space between the lens and subject might be very similar, but the overall focus distance of the 105/4 is greater. The distance between the film/sensor plane and the subject is 420mm, compared to about 380mm for the AIS 105/2.8 micro. For subjects in hard to reach places sometimes that extra distance makes a difference.
By comparison, the AF 200/4 micro focuses down to 0.5m at 1:1, more than the 105mm micros but not as much as you might expect. Being an IF design the focal length is greatly reduced at close range.
-
The "Free working distance" I refer to is the distance from the front edge of the lens, the leading edge of the filter threads to the subject plane. Add a 3mm thick filter and I loose 3mm of free working distance. Extend a hood and I loose even more.
-
There is also the Reflex Nikkor 500/8N which can focus down to 1.5m.
It is a cheap lens but difficult to use and get sharp images......but it sometime surprises with sharp images :-) ....so I guess it is a question to use the right technique.....
I remember that I took an image of TV monitor at close distance and I could see every RGB line.....so it can make macro shots also. And it has no CA.
-
I use the non-stabilized Tamron 90mm. The front element is well recessed in the barrel but the tube extends quite a bit like the Nikkor 105 f2.8 AFD. At 1:1, the effective working distance is also short especially when the lens hood is used. This version uses a clutch mechanism to engage the AF. Here are a few samples from the lens.
Did anyone try the Tamron 90mm? This seems to be quite a nice lens.
-
In the last image......who won the fight?
-
The 200/4.0 IF AI Micro-Nikkor isn't the best example to make a point of IF focal length loss at close focus since it has a healthy 495mm of free working distance at 1/2 life size. My estimate is it should have a free working distance of something like 550mm to 600mm. Perhaps someone who understands optical design better than I can comment on this.
The AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED Micro-Nikkor although it's not an IF design has only 244mm of free working distance at 1/2 life size. This is much less than what one would expect of a 180mm macro lens. It's the same free working distance as the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor which itself is 33mm less free working distance compared to the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor at 1/2 life size. Out of curiosity I compared the angle of view of my AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED Micro-Nikkor to my 180/2.8 AIS at or near infinity. The angle of view was identical or damned close. The AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 has some amazing and desirable features but free working distance at 1/2 life size is not one of them. I estimate the lens to subject distance for a unit focusing 180mm macro lens should be about 500mm to 540mm so it looses significant focal length to focus close.
I remember a Nikkor zoom lens discussed on various media that offered the angle of view and focal length of about 135mm when set to marked 200mm and focus to about 2m. This lens, probably an early 70-200/2.8 ED-IF Zoom Nikkor, is an example of the IF focal length loss at close focus. I think Tony Northrup commented on the following model noting that it didn't have such a pronounced loss of focal length at 200mm and close focus.
Anyway I always wonder what true focal length of an IF design is at minimum focus distance.
Dave
-
the bug on the right corner chickened out and flew away as soon as the spider moved closer :)
In the last image......who won the fight?
-
In the 105mm range, why not try out the 105mm f/4 AIS micro. It has excellent performance, as noted above great working distance and is not a very large investment. The AIS version has a nice locking knob for the focus collar. I like the way it "paints" the background.
#1
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p1244062581.jpg)
D5100 with 105 mm f/4 micro AIS @ f.7.1, 1/1250, ISO 400 (lens is chipped).
#2
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p1244074423.jpg)
D5100 with 105 mm f/4 micro AIS @ f/8, 1/60, ISO 100
With PN-11 that came along with it (actually my reason for getting this lens, one could say I got the lens by "accident"):
#3
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2389095214.jpg)
NIKON D7100 with 105mm f/4 micro AIS +PN11 @ f/8, 25s, ISO 100, UV-induced visual fluorescence (UVIVF).
-
the bug on the right corner chickened out and flew away as soon as the spider moved closer :)
The spider should have read the B. F. Skinner article I read. It would have had a delicious meal.
-
the bug on the right corner chickened out and flew away as soon as the spider moved closer :)
A moth has no weapons except trying to scare the spider with size; in the end the moth won because it saved its hide...
You caught the right moment, congrats!
In the 90 mm range I have the Voigtlander 90mm sl-2 MF (Nikon F mount), already chipped by maker, and with a dedicated close-up lens. Works nicely. Focussing on the Z6 or Z7 is a delight if you map one of the buttons as a dedicated 200% (or even 100%) zoom.
I have had good results at close range with the Reflex-Nikkor (new version) 500mm/8: it focuses down to 1.5 m, but you need a lot of light to use sufficiently short exposures when used hand-held. A monopod can be useful.
Ciao from Massimo
-
I messed up and pressed the Quote button instead of the Modify.
Let me add that I like a lot the μNikkor 105/4 Ai with and without its dedicated extension tube, and I find the zoom function of the 70-180/5.6 very useful. Sometimes I use the latter as a walk-around lens with maybe a wideangle in my pocket. No AF on Z6/Z7, too bad. I have other cameras where it does AF (D3, D600, D810, D500...)
Ciao from Massimo
-
Øivind those images are amazing!
Agree about the background! Very smooth bokeh;)
-
I made a quick test shot with Micro-Nikkor 200/4 AI on Z50 at closets distance (0.7m) at f4.
The whole frame and then a 100% crop. I removed as much of the CA I could using NX-D and there are not much left. So lens can produce a useful image......even at f4?
The light was just a flash direct at the watch.
Like Sisyphus, I am bound to hell the lenses I currently own!
Perhaps I should test my 200/4.0 IF AI Micro in less demanding circumstances? I may find I have a use for the lens with my D850 if I avoid the most troublesome of situations. I would not buy this lens today for use with my D850 and would not buy it for a Z7 II or D500.
Similar purple/magenta blooming of highlights to what I got with the 200/4.0 IF AI Micro can be seen here...
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9875.0
Dave
-
Øivind those images are amazing!
Agree about the background! Very smooth bokeh;)
Thanks, Erik. Of course backgrounds tend to be fairly smooth at this image scale, however I find that the 105/4 micro has a special character - may be related to the hexagonal aperture noticeable in the second capture. Usually that is looked upon as a disadvantage, but I feel it adds a special quality that is not the straight as smooth a possible bokeh often sought after.
-
Like Sisyphus, I am bound to the lenses I currently own!
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9875.0
Dave
Poor Sisyphus didn’t have eBay to sell his rock and perhaps purchase one which rolled better. I too have strong attachment to what I have, the foundational stones of the photos I have taken. But I am starting to think it may be better to think of things with the lightness of arrows.
-
The "Free working distance" I refer to is the distance from the front edge of the lens, the leading edge of the filter threads to the subject plane. Add a 3mm thick filter and I loose 3mm of free working distance. Extend a hood and I loose even more.
Yes, understood. I was just trying to explain that even thought the AIS 105/4 and AIS 105/2.8 have almost identical free working distance at 1:1 (no filters or hoods attached), the longer focus distance of the 105/4 can be useful. A healthy free working distance is important for shy subjects like insects and other small animals which don't like cameras intruding into their personal space, and also prevents the camera/lens from blocking light on the subject.
But I have also had cases where the free working distance was perfectly adequate but the longer overall focus distance of the 105/4 gave me more freedom in placing my tripod. Sometimes it simply isn't possible to move the tripod any closer to the subject without falling off the edge of a bank, or it's not possible to get the tripod any higher up a tree. Or moving the tripod any closer will scare away the subject. This is where the longer focus distancer of the 105/4 can sometimes make a useful (if small) difference.
-
Thanks, Erik. Of course backgrounds tend to be fairly smooth at this image scale, however I find that the 105/4 micro has a special character - may be related to the hexagonal aperture noticeable in the second capture. Usually that is looked upon as a disadvantage, but I feel it adds a special quality that is not the straight as smooth a possible bokeh often sought after.
The 105/4 has seven aperture blades to the blurs are heptagonal.
Almost all AI and AIS lenses are the same...
-
But I have also had cases where the free working distance was perfectly adequate but the longer overall focus distance of the 105/4 gave me more freedom in placing my tripod. Sometimes it simply isn't possible to move the tripod any closer to the subject without falling off the edge of a bank, or it's not possible to get the tripod any higher up a tree...
OK, I got it now. :)
-
The 105/4 has seven aperture blades to the blurs are heptagonal.
Almost all AI and AIS lenses are the same...
Oops, you are of course correct, confirmed on lens. I should not have relied on memory and what I thought was the outline of the aperture in image #2 above, might have been some parallell vertical elements in the background. Part of the confusion might be that the 55mm f/3.5 micro (AI) has 6 (slightly curved) aperture blades.
-
The 200mm f4 Ai is known to have a fair amount of chromatic aberration. I have one and checked and it does.
-
I keep thinking when they make a 200/Af-S/VR/micro, I can afford the old D version. I have been using the Ai 200 micro since back into the film only days. I will sometimes get a bit of ghosting, (Reflections from the internal elements.)
I carry it in my MF sack and my copy makes a decent distance shot. I have also noticed....
I followed The Bear's advise on a reversed 4T for 1:1 on the Ai version. I unscrewed the 4T retaining ring and mounted the glass backward, allowing for "Normal" filter use.
The distance on reversed T is closer to the lens front element & the flattening effect is not quite as profound, but I'm not 100% on that.
-
With the AF-D Micro 200/4
earlier posted in March 2021
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9880.0;attach=48293;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9880.0;attach=48297;image)
-
Just stumbled over this site again;
http://www.pierretoscani.com/focale.html#focale37Animation of how the Micro Nikkor 105mm AF-S VR looses it's focal length as it focuses,,,
One of those lenses that I returned shortly after testing it out - and newer looking back!
-
John I really like your cactus photo - thank you
-
Thank you, Daniel.
-
Just stumbled over this site again;
http://www.pierretoscani.com/focale.html#focale37Animation of how the Micro Nikkor 105mm AF-S VR looses it's focal length as it focuses,,,
One of those lenses that I returned shortly after testing it out - and newer looking back!
The older AF 105/2.8 micro also looses focal length at close range - even more than the AF-S VR version, but for some reason this is more often mentioned as a disadvantage for the AF-S model. Maybe this can be explained as the AF 105 micro has a gentle loss of focal length across the entire focus range, while the focal length of the AF-S version remains constant at medium-far distances but then drops more rapidly at close range.
One thing not mentioned is the rear 1.4x converter of the AF 105 micro is not a fixed unit. From Nikon 1001 nights article: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0072/index.htm
"Gauss-type structure comprised of six elements in five groups with a three-element teleconverter behind this main structure. Three elements in front of the aperture, three elements behind the aperture, and the front two elements in the teleconverter structure combine to form a total of three groups that each moves independently to focus from close-up to infinity."
Observing my lens I can see that as the lens is focused closer, the front two elements of the rear converter move rearwards, then stop and move forward as the lens approaches 1:1, finally arriving at more or less the same position as it started. This complex design must give a high degree of correction across the focus range providing very good optical quality. Perhaps over-corrected as the background bokeh at medium-far distances is rough. And lack of ED and other special glasses means it is not colour-corrected as well as more recent lenses, so some CA is observed.
-
Just stumbled over this site again;
http://www.pierretoscani.com/focale.html#focale37Animation of how the Micro Nikkor 105mm AF-S VR looses it's focal length as it focuses,,,
One of those lenses that I returned shortly after testing it out - and newer looking back!
Is this work available in an English languish site?
I probably should have bought an AF-S 70-200/4.0G ED-IF VR rather than the AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR Micro-Nikkor. Again it's a honker with too many aberrations.
Dave
-
I use Google translate for these page, only a few of them are available in English and they have sometimes been completely missing, I believe due to copyright issues,,,
Here is Ricks excellent article fresh from the press just in :o https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9886.new#new (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9886.new#new)
-
i just overhauled a severly fungus damaged 200/4 ai (wide grip) :o :o :o
despite all the bad rap it appears to be a decent performer even with a chipped front element and bad fungus trauma ::)
from what i see it seems to lack resolving power for a micro-nikkor and what people perceive as softness is compounded by thin dof even at f/8, apart from that it appears to be quite fine but it doesnt have that wow factor that many shorter micro nikkor in the 50-60mm range have
-
Digging up this old thread ... as I recently sold my MF version and just acquired a second hand copy of the AF lens.
It's in rather good shape otherwise but suffers from the common problem of a broken A/M ring. I expect to mostly use the lens in manual focus mode so probably don't need to fiddle with the ring much, and could maybe just put some black electrician's tape over the break, but it's still a bit annoying. Is it a laborous (i.e. costly) repair if I take it to a shop? Likely wouldn't attempt it myself.
-
Don't bother -- just seal the broken A/M ring in place with sturdy tape. The AF is glacial and who would want that for close-ups?
By the way, the makeshift tape fix is required to prevent further damage to the lens in the future. Like its shorter relative AF 105 f/2 DC, the 200 Micro ED can split into two when the A/M ring is broken.
-
Good grief. Such a robust looking design otherwise, let down by a cheap piece of plastic... well, it's taped up now. Thanks for the heads up!
-
It's the same story with other Nikkors of that era. The A/M ring is ever so slightly too large thus the screw holding it in position exerts constant pressure and material fatigue cracks will eventually develop. My AF 200/4 Micro broke up after 11 years of not using the A/M ring at all :(
The next year after the 200 Micro incident, I was climbing ('walking' probably was more correct) the highest mountain in Czech Republic, when my AF 105 mm f/2 DC Nkikkor suddenly snapped in two parts, as the A/M ring fell apart. I had gaffa tape in my backpack and taped the two parts together for the remainder of the trip. AF didn't work of course, and neither did aperture, but I got some photos. Back home, Nikon couldn't repair the lens due to lack of spare parts thus I just threw it away.
I have taped down proactively the AFD 85/1.4 and AFD Micro 60/2.8 Nikkors.
-
Are these now unobtainable fragile rings candidates for 3-D printing I wonder?
If so they could be (slightly) re-dimensioned for corrected internal size and made more robust externally?
I never seen one outside of a lens, so please forgive me as I am just thinking out loud here.
-
The A/M ring is connected to stuff on the inside :(
-
Are these now unobtainable fragile rings candidates for 3-D printing I wonder?
If so they could be (slightly) re-dimensioned for corrected internal size and made more robust externally?
I never seen one outside of a lens, so please forgive me as I am just thinking out loud here.
The material of these M/A rings where updated at some point by Nikon, so lenses that went in for repair/service or are manufactured later have no issues.I have had a large number of lenses with the M/A ring design and never had any issues at all. I have however seen this issue on a few lenses.
Most likely they forgot or omitted glass reinforcement in the early rings,,,
-
The A-M ring on my AF 60mm f/2.8 micro (non-D) developed the crack many years ago, so I took Birna's advice and secured it permanently in manual mode with electrical tape before anything more happened.
-
The material of these M/A rings where updated at some point by Nikon, so lenses that went in for repair/service or are manufactured later have no issues.I have had a large number of lenses with the M/A ring design and never had any issues at all. I have however seen this issue on a few lenses.
Most likely they forgot or omitted glass reinforcement in the early rings,,,
I have had and still have a number of those lenses with the sliding M/A switch. I have experienced one such ring cracking (on a 80-200/2.8 D N with tripod collar). Nikon repaired it but the sliding movement was not quite as smooth as the original part (they made modifications to make it more sturdy). Anyway, I have not experienced this fault with my other lenses.
I have not used the 200/4 Micro in autofocus mode often, but 1.5 years ago I needed it to photograph frogs. The AF started to squeak (probably from lack of use in AF mode) but that went away after a bit of time using the lens and hasn't returned. The switch works OK and I love that I can get a bit more distance while still getting narrow compositions.
I am inclined to believe that many of these lenses will continue to work fine while some break. Since it's a mechanical system in principle it should be repairable even if original parts are not available.