NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => What the Nerds Do => Topic started by: richardHaw on March 04, 2021, 14:33:20
-
https://richardhaw.com/2021/03/04/repair-micro-nikkor-105mm-f-4-ai-s/
quite good but not as good as I was expecting it to be :o :o :o
-
Thank you!
Good timing, we where talking a lot about this lens lately.
-
Thank you!
Good timing, we where talking a lot about this lens lately.
oh? where? ill go look for it :o :o :o
-
It's mentioned several times in this thread
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9867.0 (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9867.0)
I have added a link back to here as well
-
oh, i found another one :o :o :o
-
How does it compare to the 105 2.8 Ais micro Nikkor?
-
How does it compare to the 105 2.8 Ais micro Nikkor?
i find it sharper :o :o :o
-
You write you got this lens as "junk"?
What was the initial problem with lens since it was sold as "junk"?
I believe that there was no scratches on lenses as this is not easy to repair and the lens appears to look good from outside....not many scratches on barrel etc.....
What is the most common problems with Nikkors you buy as "junk"? oil on aperture blades? haze? ...maybe fungus?
-
You write you got this lens as "junk"?
What was the initial problem with lens since it was sold as "junk"?
I believe that there was no scratches on lenses as this is not easy to repair and the lens appears to look good from outside....not many scratches on barrel etc.....
What is the most common problems with Nikkors you buy as "junk"? oil on aperture blades? haze? ...maybe fungus?
this one has a very small scratch on the front glass :o :o :o
it also has many scratches
usually fungus, bad helicoid grease, figgy glass balsam, ugly barrel, etc. ::)
-
Have you ever used another lens as donor for the glass elements?
Taking a glass element from one lens (same type of course) to repair the other?
Is that possible or are the individual lens elements hand selected for a specific lens so you will get less performance if you swap lens elements?
If you get another 105/4 as junk the lens element that has a scratch may be ok in the other?
-
Have you ever used another lens as donor for the glass elements?
Taking a glass element from one lens (same type of course) to repair the other?
Is that possible or are the individual lens elements hand selected for a specific lens so you will get less performance if you swap lens elements?
If you get another 105/4 as junk the lens element that has a scratch may be ok in the other?
it sometimes wont work :o :o :o
some were indeed hand selected ::)
i tried this a few times
-
This may also be the reason why there can be some sample variation between the cheaper mass produced lenses.......they probably don't spend time to optimize every lens.....
All the reviews I read about the Nikkor 200-500 zoom.....the review'er tried several before getting a good one.....but then it seems to be very good......
To use a donor glass element.....you could maybe also be lucky to get a "one in a lifetime lens" :-)
-
quite good but not as good as I was expecting it to be :o :o :o
Richard, you mention spherical aberration wide open at f/4.0. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I associate some under correction of spherical aberration with good bokeh. Nikkor - The Thousand and One Night mentions that spherical aberration is under corrected at portrait distances and wide apertures in the 105/2.5 AI (Xenotar type) and this is what makes defocused backgrounds appeared beautiful. A friend owned a 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor and said it made a good portrait lens noting good bokeh at f/4.0.
How does it compare to the 105 2.8 Ais micro Nikkor?
Using the 105/2.8 AIS between 1:2 and 1:1 is complicated as this lens has CRC or floating elements. The lens should be kept at its minimum focus position and as little extension used to achieve the desired image ratio. One could use a PK-12 then PK-13 then both before using a PN-11. I wonder if anyone bothers to do this? There are suggested maximum apertures to use engraved on the barrel of the 105/2.8 AIS Micro. I believe this is for edge sharpness. It's easier to use the 105/4.0 AI or AIS and use the PN-11 to go from 1:2 to 1:1 as the 105/4.0 Micro is a unit focusing lens with no CRC.
---
I bought a 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor as soon as it was released but returned it. I was pretty green. I used a PK-13 tube and took photos of bees at 1:1.3 and marked f/32. The results were quite soft. I believe this is an effective f/57. Even then I probably knew better than to use f/45~f/64 with 4x5 due to diffraction. Years later I bought a friend's 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor. I've only used it with a PN-11.
---
My thoughts renegading the 105/2.8 AIS Micro v. 105/4.0 AI/AIS Micro are use the 105/2.8 for a general 105mm, a portrait lens and close-up to 1:2. Use the 105/4.0 AI and AIS Micro as a general 105mm lens, portrait lens and 1:2 to 1:1 and beyond.
Dave
-
yes but this is a macro lens so id rather not see it :o :o :o
i looked at my results from the 2.8, the 5 really is sharper ::)
-
yes but this is a macro lens so id rather not see it :o :o :o
i looked at my results from the 2.8, the 5 really is sharper ::)
Say what?
-
Spherical aberration is fine with me, along with some chromatic aberration but this is a macro lens so i'd rather not see it :o :o :o
i checked my tests of the 105/2.8ais and indeed the f/4 is sharper ::)
-
At what distance? The 105/4 is a unit focusing lens - no floating elements - so it can be optimised for only one distance. For example the AI 55/3.5 micro is optimised at 1:10, I'm not sure if the 105/4 is the same. At distances outside the optimum range I expect field curvature and spherical aberrations to become progressively worse. With a well designed lens, the drop in performance can be kept minimal so it can be used successfully at all distances.
The AIS 105/2.8 micro does have floating elements, the basic structure is a double-gauss 75mm f/2 lens with close range correction applied between the front and rear groups, and a 1.4x teleconverter fixed at the rear, so there are three groups of lenses which should prove a higher level of correction at all distances. Surely the Nikon designers would have wanted their new f/2.8 macro to be superior to the older model over the entire focus range.
The increase of one stop and CRC means the new lens has twice as many elements, the extra glass/air surfaces means is has lower contrast when shooting into strong light (the 105/4 isn't perfect either in spite of only 5 elements in 3 groups). Also, the AIS 105/2.8 micro has a shorter focus distance at close range and doesn't work so well on extension, so you could question whether the newer lens is an all-round improvement, but I would be surprised if it isn't sharper between infinity and 1:2.
I have heard the CRC mechanism of the AIS 105/2.8 is delicate, a knock to the front could put it out of alignment. Maybe that, or the lower contract could account for the lower perceived sharpness?
-
I have heard the CRC mechanism of the AIS 105/2.8 is delicate, a knock to the front could put it out of alignment. Maybe that, or the lower contract could account for the lower perceived sharpness?
at 1:1 or anywhere near it. CRC to my knowledge is mostly apparent at the corners. :o :o :o
it is possible that the 105/2.8 is better at a distance and the 105/4 at closer to 1:1 since the latter was originally designed as a bellows-only lens?
it appears that the 105/4 is sharper by about 2/3 of a stop, i think the 105/4 looks better at f/4 than the 105/2.8 at f/4 (center), its true that the CRC may be misaligned so i am getting these results.
if i am not mistaken, the 105/2.8D is the sharpest Nikkor 105 i have tried, even sharper than the 105VR at f/16. i will never use the 105VR at f/16 but the older 105/2.8D is not so bad at that aperture. that was a huge disappointment because i used to take a lot of bug photos and dof is very important to me.
-
in case anybody is curious, the https://richardhaw.com/2020/05/02/repair-micro-nikkor-5cm-f-3-5-ltm/ oldest micro-nikkor performs MUCH better compared to all of the 105 that i have ever tried :o :o :o
-
Any explanation for the use of the word "Micro" v. "Macro?" The Nikon Nikkormat Handbook by Joseph D. Cooper gave an explanation but I don't remember what it was.
Dave
-
Any explanation for the use of the word "Micro" v. "Macro?" The Nikon Nikkormat Handbook by Joseph D. Cooper gave an explanation but I don't remember what it was.
Dave
What I have understood (at least in Nikon terms) is that Micro is for the lenses that go up to 1:1, and Macro for the ones that go from 1:1 and larger.
-
Some zoom lenses have a Marco setting to give some better close up performance.
All of the special purpose F-mount lenses capable of infinity to 1:1/1:2 are called Micro-nikkor
The Nikon Multiphot lenses are called Macro-Nikkor and Macro Nikkor
Then there are Ultra-Micro-Nikkor, Nikkor-AM and others ;)
-
at 1:1 or anywhere near it. CRC to my knowledge is mostly apparent at the corners. :o :o :o
it is possible that the 105/2.8 is better at a distance and the 105/4 at closer to 1:1 since the latter was originally designed as a bellows-only lens?
If the 105/2.8 is attached to a PN-11 and focused all the way out, the CRC should be arranged fully for close up shooting, although it will be optimised for 1:2 not 1:1, so it is probably not strongest at this magnification. (The worst case is attached to the PN-11 and "focused" to infinity for 1:2 magnification. In this setup the optics are optimised for infinity, not 1:2 so you should expect performance to be poor. Much better to remove the extension tube and focus all the way out. To repeat what David said: "The lens should be kept at its minimum focus position and as little extension used to achieve the desired image ratio.")
Similarly, if 105/4 was optimised for 1:10 magnification, it probably is not perfect at 1:1. It is likely the AF 105/2.8 micro is better at 1:1 since it can achieve this magnification without extension tubes.
-
I'm experimenting with my 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor at two to three meters using the matte surface of the focus screen and electronic focus assist in my D850. I using a Nikon DK-17M (1.2x) eyepiece and the 30x20mm format as I can see the complete image area with that image area setting while wearing my glasses. That combination offers a finder magnification of 0.96x (50mm at infinity) which is just at the edge that I can manage.
I'm thinking the D500 with a 1.0x viewfinder and 1.2x, DK-17M eyepiece (1.2x combined) would work very well for me. The approximate angle of view of the 105/4.0 Micro on the 24x16mm format is roughly the same as a 160mm lens on FX. Maybe some day I'll own a D500. :)
Dave
-
for variety and to confuse you guys even more, I will add the 5cm/3.5 into the mix :o :o :o
i will shoot a few samples with it using some extension tubes that I salvaged from a Chaika ::)
-
for variety and to confuse you guys even more, I will add the 5cm/3.5 into the mix :o :o :o
i will shoot a few samples with it using some extension tubes that I salvaged from a Chaika ::)
We have other threads on the 55mm Micro Nikkors you know :o :o :o
-
The AIS 105/2.8 micro does have floating elements, the basic structure is a double-gauss 75mm f/2 lens with close range correction applied between the front and rear groups, and a 1.4x teleconverter fixed at the rear, so there are three groups of lenses which should prove a higher level of correction at all distances. Surely the Nikon designers would have wanted their new f/2.8 macro to be superior to the older model over the entire focus range.
This is interesting Roland where did you get this information from? I always thought the last four elements look like a tele-converter. So as the front elements move forward, they magnify the image and the focal length increases instead of decreasing as most CRC systems do. Regards Gerry
-
This is interesting Roland where did you get this information from? I always thought the last four elements look like a tele-converter. So as the front elements move forward, they magnify the image and the focal length increases instead of decreasing as most CRC systems do. Regards Gerry
Some information is in the article about the AF 105/2.8 micro: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0072/index.htm which was a development of the AI-S 105/2.8 micro:
Reducing the amount of movement required by adding a teleconverter behind the Gauss structure followed the AI Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8S upon which this lens was based.
More information about the AF 105/2.8 micro here: http://www.pierretoscani.com/focale.html#focale37Animation
- a mobile primary lens of the “double Gauss” type (focal length: 75 mm) equipped with a correction system for close focusing
- an integrated and fixed rear converter with a coefficient of 1.4x (see following figure).
The AI-S has an optical system with a double-gauss structure at the front. Like the AI-S 55/2.8 micro, close range correction is applied by opening up the space between the front and rear groups. This has the effect of increasing the focal length at close range. On the other hand, the rear teleconverter has the effect of reducing the focal length at close range, which more than cancels out the increase in the front group, and reduces the overall amount of extension required to achieve 1:2 magnification.
-
oh, putain...the link is very informative but the important bits in the animation are in French :o :o :o
-
Well thanks for sharing this website Roland and this information on the 105 2.8 Ais It really is an incredible engineering feat. Regards Gerry
Some information is in the article about the AF 105/2.8 micro: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0072/index.htm which was a development of the AI-S 105/2.8 micro:
Reducing the amount of movement required by adding a teleconverter behind the Gauss structure followed the AI Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8S upon which this lens was based.
More information about the AF 105/2.8 micro here: http://www.pierretoscani.com/focale.html#focale37Animation
- a mobile primary lens of the “double Gauss” type (focal length: 75 mm) equipped with a correction system for close focusing
- an integrated and fixed rear converter with a coefficient of 1.4x (see following figure).
The AI-S has an optical system with a double-gauss structure at the front. Like the AI-S 55/2.8 micro, close range correction is applied by opening up the space between the front and rear groups. This has the effect of increasing the focal length at close range. On the other hand, the rear teleconverter has the effect of reducing the focal length at close range, which more than cancels out the increase in the front group, and reduces the overall amount of extension required to achieve 1:2 magnification.
-
The AIS 105/2.8 micro does have floating elements, the basic structure is a double-gauss 75mm f/2 lens with close range correction applied between the front and rear groups, and a 1.4x teleconverter fixed at the rear, so there are three groups of lenses which should prove a higher level of correction at all distances. Surely the Nikon designers would have wanted their new f/2.8 macro to be superior to the older model over the entire focus range.
This is interesting Roland where did you get this information from? I always thought the last four elements look like a tele-converter. So as the front elements move forward, they magnify the image and the focal length increases instead of decreasing as most CRC systems do. Regards Gerry
New is not always better regrading all points of performance, clearly this is the case here for 'usable working distance' in front of the lens and focal length shortening (focus) breathing which is the case here compared to the 105mm f/4
This trade off of for introducing floating elements for close up sharpness is obvious.
Sure they wanted the 105mm f/2.8 Ais to be 'better' than the privies versions and they succeeded in most aspects for all use cases ;)
Design choices; The 70-180mm Micro Nikkor is also a great example, so much research and development went into that design.
-
I took a series of product images with the 105mm f/4 Micro Nikkor AI-S - Simple to use and reliable!
Last image with 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor AI-SElinchrom RX AS Ranger with two soft boxes
-
wow, so sharp! :o :o :o
this is probably the sharpest 105mm Micro-Nikkor I have used. the Z ones are as real as Pam Anderson's front, they have in-camera editing ::) this is ms. Dolly Parton...
-
I noticed when you mentioned the Micro-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 on the previous page the link to Pierre Toscani's website. That site is, or was, an invaluable wealth of information, with illustrations not found anywhere else. Checked again today, like a number of times before, but all the information there seems gone.
Does anybody know what happened, or does anybody know Pierre T? Birna? Roland?
-
I noticed when you mentioned the Micro-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 on the previous page the link to Pierre Toscani's website. That site is, or was, an invaluable wealth of information, with illustrations not found anywhere else. Checked again today, like a number of times before, but all the information there seems gone.
Does anybody know what happened, or does anybody know Pierre T? Birna? Roland?
He closed his site mid 2022. He explained it here (in French): https://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php?topic=328066.0
Bref, j’ai toujours partagé gratuitement (et à mes frais) une grande partie (pas tout, il est vrai) de mon travail effectué pendant mon temps de loisir, mais il était temps de tourner la page pour me consacrer à autre chose. Aussi, j’ai résilié mon abonnement (très cher) aux logiciels Adobe qui me permettaient de gérer mon site et de réaliser mes illustrations fixes ou animées.
In short, he moved on to other things in his free time. He also stopped his subscriptions to the (very costly) Adobe softwares he used on his site.
Some pages are still accessible on web archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220218070332/http://www.pierretoscani.com/
-
Similar info on lens design:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Nikon/US005751485/Example09.txt,figureOpacity=0,MarginalO,OffAxis,Pupils,AxisZ,AxisR,AxisO