AF-S Micro Nikkor 105 1:2.8 G ED as general purpose lens

[MEPER]

A couple of days back I took a short walk and tested the AFS 105 Micro at f/2.8 as a general purpose lens to check bokeh quality etc.
I was quite satisfied with the quality. I did not see any disturbing Longitudinal CA. Lens has VR and is well built.
I will keep it for that purpose. 2nd hand prices are quite low. I have an old "Made in Japan" version.
Last year I purchased a nice 2nd hand AF 105/2.8 D lens. I was expecting this lens (based on rumors) to have less CA at 2.8 close up but not according to the test I performed (to my surprise). But a nice lens anyway and it was cheap.
I think the AFS 105 Micro can make nice portraits at 2.8.

[MEPER]

One more also shot at 2.8.

[Birna Rørslett]

If you use jpgs off the camera, most of the CA issues have been mitigated by in-camera processing.  Or at least not so annoying.

i never liked the AFS 105mm f/2.8 G. Handling was awkward for my small hands, CA was troublesome, and sharpness not stellar at the widest apertures. I kept it just for three months before getting my paws on the first of several CV APO-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 lenses. These days I either use the Vigtländer APO 65mm f/2 or the Nikkor MC 105mm f/2.8. The first is heavy and haptics could be better, the latter a bit of the thick side but quite light in weight, plus it has AF when the lens is used for non-"macro" work.  Both lenses yield excellent results. Sadly my trustworthy 125mm APO-Lantars in F-mount don't handle well on the Z bodies.

[ColinM]

I was looking forward to buying my first macro lens, just about the time Nikon released this version of the lens. I bought it and set about learning how to use it.

Then read Birna's review and got very depressed.

A while later i started using it for general photography too and was stunned at the quality of some of the results.

Here is a subject and configuration that very few people would recommend...but on this occasion seemed to work
D300 105mm VR TC14

[Birna Rørslett]

I have wondered, and being asked, many times over the years why the response to the AFS Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR  differed so much between the users. Broken expectations alone cannot be the sole explanation. Perhaps there were quaility issues in the production run(s)? Or something inside might get out of alignment. The 24mm f/2 Nikkor had a similar fate. Most of the samples i have tried over the years simply have been awful. However, once in a while I have encountered a really nice performing 24. [I own now one of these myelf -- my third attempt]. Why??

The answer is I don't know.

Colin: an owl as white as the driven snow. You must have been quite close even with the 1.4X,

[ColinM]

Colin: an owl as white as the driven snow.
You must have been quite close even with the 1.4X,

Thanks Birna
I'd guess i could have been 100m away and there was a fair degree of cropping
That's why I'm pleased with the performance of my copy of this lens

I also like the expression on its face "I'm coming back for you!"

[MEPER]

What I found a bit disappointing with the lens was the amount of OOF CA using the lens at full aperture and max. magnification.
I have attached two crops of such an image I just took at printed text shot at an angle to get both front and back focus.
I have done the same with the older AF 105/2.8 D. But first the AFS 105/2.8.
I think the lens if a very fine lens for "normal" use.

[MEPER]

And here the AF 105/2.8 D.

[MEPER]

Normally you would expect a lens filled with expensive ED and super ED glass be much better performer when it comes to CA then its "older sister" which just use normal cheap glass elements?
I think that was the reason many got a bit disappointed with the lens.

[MEPER]

To have something very old to compare with. Here are two similar crops using the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor-P (compensating type) using the M-adapter to make it 1:1.
This lens has only five lens elements.

[MEPER]

Here is an example of how it can be done. The lens used is a Scanner Nikkor used in Scanners like LS-5000 ED.
I could have added more extension to get larger magnification but the results would be the same. No (almost) CA.
If I had a choice I would rather get a lens dedicated to macro work. To get that I need to adapt it to Z-mount.
I know that the Z-version of the 105/2.8 is much better. It is just......now I have the other lens.
The lenses I used most for close-up is either the 55/3.5 Nikkor-P or the Scanner Nikkor or a Minolta Scanner lens which is also very good.
The AFS 105/2.8 is now a general purpose lens and I think it is very good for this purpose and then nice to know that it can focus rather close.

[MEPER]

I wonder who develops the special Nikkors like the Scanner Nikkors if it is another department that the people from the video in another thread?
The Minolta Scanner lens is quite small but performs very good and the adapter setup I have gives a higher magnification than the Nikkor setup so the same example using the Minolta scanner lens.
It is quite fun that these lenses could be purchased years ago for almost nothing just getting a defective scanner and take out the lens. Now the prices has raised a bit as it has rumored that the lenses are very good.
It is important to know if a defective scanner still has the lens or not.

[Birna Rørslett]

Scanner lenses are "better" because they are dedicated to a single task. They only designed to work over a very narrow range of  magnifications. They don't focus to infinity. High contrast is easier achievable when the lens only encounters [nearly] fixed illumination and is well protected from sky glare and point-light flare. And so on.  Put in an ED element or two and the lens is nearly apochromatic in its design range.

I often use a Scanning ED Nikkor from a dysfunctional Nikon 4000ED scanner. It is mounted to give a fixed 1.3X magnification. There is no aperture and no focusing, but I did add a CPU to provide EXIF data. No problem when focus stacking is used. Images are crisp and clear and virtually free of CA of any kind.

[MEPER]

I have not tested how far these lenses can focus (if lens is mounted close to the sensor)?

Nikon has probably not seen a market to develop such a near-focus lens for either F og Z mount.
I also have the large 9000 ED lens but have not mounted it yet so it can be used on the camera.
Both the small 7 lens (used in 4000ED, 5000ED) and the large 14 element lens (used in 8000ED, 9000ED) are described in this article:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/articolo%20Scanner%20Nikkor%20ED.pdf
How to mount them described here:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/scanner-nikkor-ed-7-element-lens
It is very impressing lenses. The large one should have a lot in common with the old printing Nikkor lens.

[Birna Rørslett]

If you push any lens way outside its design limits, performance will suffer. Very strong field curvature is commonly seen if the special optics for close-ups are forced to focus towards distant scenery. Usually accompanied by horrible spherical aberration and/or coma.

Thre "X-ray" lenses show us the opposite behaviour, since these lenses both have extremely short back focus and are made for fixed infinity foucs. When put on a camera, we tend to get close-ups and concomitantly, all the special aberrations seen in the close-up lenses mentioned above when the latter is pushed towards infinity.

There is no free lunch. Our best hope would be to find a balance point along the focusing scale.