105mm f/2.8 AI-S D850 vs 105mm f/2.8 MC Z9

[John Geerts]

A small comparison between two Macro lenses,   the 105mm f/2.8  on the Nikon D850   and the 105mm f/2.8 MC lens on the Nikon  Z9  (non-scientific,  just in the field switching camera's )

First is with D850  second with the Z9

Adobe standard profile  white balance 4500  - tint +25   The MC lens is at f/3   the AIS at f/2.8

Second White balance 4600  tint 0

[Fons Baerken]

Not much difference minor differences on colour, contrast and bokeh.

[Roland Vink]

There is very little to separate them, at least at the size I am viewing these pictures. I couldn't state a preference for either one, which says a lot about how good the old-timer is compared to the new 105MC. It might be different if we are looking at pixel level, I imagine the new lens would have better micro contrast, control of CA, and probably does better shooting into strong light.

[John Geerts]

Thanks for the observations. I was mainly interested here in how the bokeh would compare and possible 'differences'  between the D850 and Z9.

Pretty close indeed, perhaps the 105MC is a bit smoothier. The MC can get closer and has autofocus possibilities.

I forgot the sunhood of the AIS so didn't shoot into the sun for comparison means.

[Erik Lund]

Very similar rendition, almost impossible to tell them apart. Thx for sharing!

[Fons Baerken]

Thanks for the observations. I was mainly interested here in how the bokeh would compare and possible 'differences'  between the D850 and Z9.

Pretty close indeed, perhaps the 105MC is a bit smoothier. The MC can get closer and has autofocus possibilities.

I forgot the sunhood of the AIS so didn't shoot into the sun for comparison means.

MC struggles with autofocus with close-ups on the Z7_2, in all do we need new gear?

[Roland Vink]

Pretty close indeed, perhaps the 105MC is a bit smoothier. The MC can get closer and has autofocus possibilities.

These were all shot wide open. Stopped down the 105MC should have rounder blurs due to having 9 curved aperture blades. The AIS has only 7 straight-edge aperture blades so blurs will look distinctly polygonal.

How does the manual focus action compare? The AIS, being a manual focus lens has a very smooth mechanical focus ring. The 105MC can be set to have a very long focus throw but it is focus by wire, I wonder how it feels?

[MEPER]

On my monitor the Z7 images looks slightly darker and probably therefor has a bit more saturated colors?
Look at the first set of images and compare the flower in focus?

[John Geerts]

How does the manual focus action compare? The AIS, being a manual focus lens has a very smooth mechanical focus ring. The 105MC can be set to have a very long focus throw but it is focus by wire, I wonder how it feels?

I like them both. The AIS ring is very smooth indeed, but the MC has a large ring with a 'damped' feeling, to help focus.

A bit irritating is the digital distance display on the MC  which is not continuously. Also visibility of the display suffers in strong light.

[Gerhard2006]

Nice to see this comparison of these two lenses. I also compared my 105 2.8 AIS micro to the new lens at  a camera store and couldn’t see a whole lot of difference other than I think the new lens had a little bit more contrast, but it wasn’t a huge difference. As far as the aperture blades being compared, because the depth of field is so shallow, I seldom see the shape of the aperture in my pictures and when it’s there, they are very soft and muted so they are hard to see. Not enough to pay $1200 for considering the 105 used can go  for under $200. Thanks for sharing. Regards Gerry

[Birna Rørslett]

Contrast is higher on the 105MC than the 105/2.8 AiS. The newer lens also has somewhat better control of chromatic aberrations but here should be mentioned the old AiS was among the better of Micro-Nikkors in this regard. The latest of the 105 Micro-Nikkors, AFS 105/2.8, displayed way too much chromatic nasties for my taste and had the doubtful honour of being the only Micro-Nikkor I quickly sold off after a few month's use.

In terms of size, the Z lens is much bigger but goes to 1:1, however if one wishes to do 1:1 the old lens has to add extension (PN-11 or similar) so extends significantly in length. PN-11 has a rotating tripod collar whilst the 105 MC has none in the stock version. There is a third-party collar (iShoot ZMC105) that is sturdy and well made, but quite expensive and have several issues. Firstly, it conflicts with Z9, secondly it only allows vertical shooting as the collar isn't rotating. The latter problem can easily be overcome by 5-10 minutes of judicious Dremel work, though, but the incompatibility with the Z9 remains.

For sheer image quality, the new Voigtländer 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar blows away both Nikkors. It might even be *too* sharp for some applications, a statement made both by myself and Michael Erlewine.  The 65 APO sells for around $850 so is cheaper than the 105 MC. It only goes to 1:2 like the old 55mm Micro-Nikkors thus one needs to use extension on it. However it has full electronic communication with the camera and a rotating aperture ring that can be set to 1/3 or 1/2 stops. Workmanship is exemplary.

[Hugh_3170]

Birna, do you know if (or how well) the new Voigtländer 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar handles the extension needed to go to 1:1 please?

......................................................... 

For sheer image quality, the new Voigtländer 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar blows away both Nikkors. It might even be *too* sharp for some applications, a statement made both by myself and Michael Erlewine.  The 65 APO sells for around $850 so is cheaper than the 105 MC. It only goes to 1:2 like the old 55mm Micro-Nikkors thus one needs to use extension on it. However it has full electronic communication with the camera and a rotating aperture ring that can be set to 1/3 or 1/2 stops. Workmanship is exemplary.

[Birna Rørslett]

Not done an in-depth analysis, but results so far seem convincing enough. I used  Meike extension tubes, which perhaps are not built with stellar workmanship but otherwise function well enough. The Fotodiox tube is better and likely the preferred future candidate. It is also much more expensive

[Hugh_3170]

Thank you.

(And I agree about the workmanship of the Meike tubes.)

Not done an in-depth analysis, but results so far seem convincing enough. I used  Meike extension tubes, which perhaps are not built with stellar workmanship but otherwise function well enough. The Fotodiox tube is better and likely the preferred future candidate. It is also much more expensive

[Michael Erlewine]

Just for fun, here are two stacked images, the larger image with the Nikkor Z 105 MC and the smaller the Voigtlander 65mm Z version. Both seem fine by me. Images are dried up Iris flowers, since we just had another snowstorm here and no flowers in northern Michigan yet, although the light is coming back.