Nikon AIS 105mm 1:2.8 micro

[Roland Vink]

I'm looking for feedback on the Nikon AIS 105mm 1:2.8 micro.

A few years ago I was looking for a short telephoto for general hand-held shooting, with ability to focus closer than my AIS 85/2 or 105/2.5. Ideally I'd like something like an 85/2 which focuses down to about 1:4 - not a true macro but close enough for casual closeups. But such a lens does not exist! I settled on a Tokina 90/2.5 macro (aka Bokina) as it is well regarded and is reasonably fast. My limited shooting experience so far has not lived up to expectations. At medium distances the bokeh is not that great in spite of its reputation - it's better at close range. Unfortunately I have not been able to use it much, the aperture blades are sluggish so it overexposes especially at small apertures. (I really need to get it fixed and test it more.)

Anyway, this got me thinking about the nearest Nikon equivalent: AIS 105mm 1:2.8 micro. This is a lens I overlooked for years - I already have the AIS 105/4 micro with its beautiful simple design and greater working distance, and the AF 105/2.8 micro with its greater magnification. However the 105/4 is too slow for general shooting, and the AF 105/2.8 is bulky, focus throw too short near infinity, and the bokeh is harsh at medium distance. The AIS 105/2.8 has the faster aperture and is more compact than either. So how does it perform - sharpness/bokeh/contrast? I have read various statements online, ranging from "unusually good at infinity" to "performance wide open inferior to the AF version". Thank you.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A tough decision. My 105/2.8 AIS has had issues with the lubrication that almost locked the lens solid. Thus I haven't used much the last years. Image quality is good to excellent. From my notes I see I found the quality to be surprisingly better at distance than up close, which is the opposite of what one would expect. But take this with a pinch of salt as I haven't tested it with the newest cameras.

[Chip Chipowski]

I like the 75-150E for this kind of shooting, but it looks like it does not focus closer than the 105mm f/2.5. 

[Roland Vink]

Yes I also use the 75-150 a lot. As you say, it focuses to the same distance (1m) as the 105/2.5, but the longer focal length allows for significantly closer cropping. It is a very useful lens, but I sometimes prefer a prime which faster and more compact.

[Balivernes]

I am the happy owner of an absolutely superb sample of that lens. It is a thing of beauty, both optically and mechanically. There is very little discussion about it in forums, etc, and that might be what helps keep 2nd hand prices down. Of course, it is heavier than the equally superb f2.5 and larger (with an add on hood on top). Perhaps not quite as contrasty wide open. Macro works well, with a mechanical focus lock that is quite neat. Needs additional macro tube to get to 1:1. Anyway, if you find a nice sample, buy it. It is one of the great ais lenses.

[Peter Forsell]

Roland, I shot a few samples for your examination. I tried to shoot at different distances and with busy weeds both in front of and behind the "subject." The full-size JPEGs are here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/albums/72157658740977339

If you want to examine the raws I can do that too, if you tell me where to put 134 MB of files. I shot them using UniWB but that shouldn't bother you, I think

[Akira]

I used a mechanically and optically clean sample of Ais Micro 105/2.8 with NIC coating.  Unfortunately I found the contrast in near range is a bit lower than the other Micro Nikkors I have used over the years (55/3.5CA, Ais 55/2.8, AF-D 60/2.8, Ais 105/4.0).  Also I didn't like the fact that the working distance is shorter than I would have liked, due to, as you know, its focal length shortening trick.

[Roland Vink]

Thank you for the replies. Yes it does seem surprising that this lens is not mentioned more often. I have heard the AIS 105/2.8 micro has lower contrast than the 105/4 micro. Not surprising since the 10 element/9 group design has a lot of glass/air surfaces compared to the older version with just 5 elements in 3 groups. Has anyone compared a NIC coated lens with a SIC coated lens (any model)? I wonder if the newer coating would show a noticeable improvement in contrast?

Peter, thank you for posting the pictures - that is exactly what I am looking for. It appears the lens is sharp. There is a certain amount of harshness in the background, and some evidence of double-line blurs when shot at wide apertures and medium-far distances (many lenses seem to struggle here), but it seems to improve at closer distances. It's not as smooth as the 105/2.5, but I've seen worse.

The focal length shortening trick does not bother me as I intend to use the lens mostly at medium to close distances, not so much for real macro. For hand-held shooting a short working distance is actually beneficial since it is easier to hold the lens steady, provided the working distance is not too short. The working distance is still better than the AF version, and I can use my 105/4 where I need longer working distance. I dare say that I'll end up with one sooner or later...

[stenrasmussen]

Here's Nikon's own wording on the difference between the NIC and SIC. (Also, notice the amusing last sentence...)

Super Integrated Coating- SIC
To enhance the performance of its optical lens elements, Nikon employs an exclusive new multilayer lens coating that helps reduce ghost and flare to a negligible level. An improvement on Nikon’s breakthrough “NIC” coating, Nikon Super Integrated Coating achieves a number of objectives, including minimized reflection in the wider wavelength range and superior color balance and reproduction. Nikon Super Integrated Coating is especially effective for lenses with a large number of elements, like  Zoom-Nikkors.
Also, Nikon’s multilayer coating process is tailored to the design of each particular lens. The number of coatings applied to each lens element is carefully calculated to matched the lens. Type and glass used, and also to assure uniform colour balance that characterises Nikkor lenses. This results in lenses that meet much higher standards than the rest of the industry.

[Akira]

Has anyone compared a NIC coated lens with a SIC coated lens (any model)? I wonder if the newer coating would show a noticeable improvement in contrast?

Roland, sorry for my misuse of the term.  Actually my sample was SIC coated, but still I felt the contrast rather low.

[Olivier]

Roland, you may also consider the AF version of the macro Tamron (105 f/2.8 ), and excellent performer at portrait distance and quite easy to MF if this is your wish.

[richardHaw]

just finished overhauling these 2 

the construction is VERY different, the older one is very close to the 200mm f4 ai in terms of engineering and barrel construction

[richardHaw]

I have heard the AIS 105/2.8 micro has lower contrast than the 105/4 micro. Not surprising since the 10 element/9 group design has a lot of glass/air surfaces compared to the older version with just 5 elements in 3 groups.

i can confirm this, f4 has more punch but loses on CA wide open

2.8 is better since the finder doesnt get dark

[Roland Vink]

just finished overhauling these 2 

the construction is VERY different, the older one is very close to the 200mm f4 ai in terms of engineering and barrel construction

I'm not surprised. The 105/4 micro is a simple unit-focusing lens like the 200/4, except that the extension is much greater.

The AIS 105/2.8 micro is a much more sophisticated lens. The rear group is essentially a built-in 1.4x TC, is fixed and does not move when focusing. The front group is a fairly standard double-gauss design, with close-range-correction applied across the front and rear groups (I think?). So it is really a 3-group lens. It's a little surprising that it "only" goes to 1:2, you might have expected it to go closer given all that engineering (even the 55/2.8 micro which is only a two-group lens goes to 1:1 in the AF version...)

Going back to my original post last year, I did end up buying one and have been very pleased. The bokeh is better than I expected, often highly corrected macro lenses give rather harsh background rendition when used as a "normal" lens, but the results have been very good. There is some LoCA but it is not designated an APO lens so that's not surprising. Mine has the newer SIC coatings, looking at the front lens are a lot of shimmering golden reflections, not very transparent (unlike even some other single coated lenses) but overall contrast is quite acceptable. I only wish it had rounded aperture blades like my AI 105/2.5.

[David H. Hartman]

To obtain better close performance one can use the shortest extension tube that will give the magnification needed with the 105/2.8 AIS Micro. I will use a PK-12, PK-13 and then a PN-11 to obtain the magnification needed. The reason for using three different extension tubes is to keep the focus ring and floating elements at or near the close focus setting, e.g. with a PN-11 and a scale of 1:2 they will be at the infinity setting which isn't good. Usually I'll use the 105/4.0 AI Micro at 1:2 ~ 1:1 for it's greater free working distance and freedom from the distraction of using various extension tubes.

Most of the time I'm carrying an AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR for it's fast AF and VR. Contrary to many reports VR does work all the way to 1:1 though this lens is not a good choice for 1:2 ~ 1:1 and it's a bitch on a tripod at that range. As one moves to higher image magnification a higher shutter speed is needed. If a person can get away with a 1/20 of a second at 2 ~ 3 meters with VR they are going to have to move to higher shutter speeds. With and without VR will show it's working but and comparison is complicated by focus errors.

If I didn't need AF frequently I'd choose the 105/2.8 AIS Micro among the three. If working on a tripod I prefer the 105/4.0 AI. If I had a sherpa I'd take all three.

Dave Hartman

If I had to choose between the 105/2.5 AIS and 105/2.8 AIS Micro it would be the Micro. If between the 75-150/3.5 AIS Series-E and 105/2.8 AIS Micro it would again be the Micro.