Gear Talk > Lens Talk
105 f2.8 Micro-Nikkor ED-IF VR - sucking dust internally
David H. Hartman:
--- Quote from: pluton on April 09, 2016, 20:19:06 ---Does dust inside do any harm?
--- End quote ---
Dust does effect the image. Fortunately it's generally only a tiny percentage and so can be ignored. I opened and cleaned my 24/2.8 AI Nikkor at about 15 months because the aperture blades had shed so much that the image contrast was noticeably low. I opened the back, marked with a fine needle the CRC group position and removed it. Then I cleaned the lens surfaces and on either side of the aperture blades and reassembled it. This is the only lens I've owned in more than 40 years where I felt there was a benefit to cleaning dust from inside. I check new and used lenses for dust. Generally it's there but of no concern.
Some lenses are quite affected with dust or worse mist on the front element. These can cause flare and ghost speckles. I do my best to shield the front of the lens in situations where getting stuff on the front might cause a problem. I use a quality UV filter frequently as I'll clean them with a T-shirt where I'm not comfortable cleaning a lens front element that way. Some lenses I only add a filter if there is mist or salt spray. I'm not consistent in this way. I do use a lens hood almost all the time and lens caps. I shade the front of the lens with my hand when needed.
Hope something here helps,
Dave
---
I find VR on the AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR Micro very useful when I can't set down a tripod however if I had to choose I'd take the AF 70-180/4.5-5.6D ED Micro any day. The later is a very special lens. Neither of these two lenses see service as macro lenses but are great for close-up. Fortunately I own both as well as a 105/4.0 AI Micro and a 105/2.8 AIS Micro. The 105/4.0 is the lens I'll choose macro. One can't have too many 105mm Micro-Nikkors. There are other great lenses in this range that I would like but can't afford. I torment my soul reading about them here at NikonGear.
I made a few mistakes here, even the camera used. :-\
It's a D800 and the ISO was pushed to 1600. I'll stop groveling.
I like the light and I could not have hand held this without VR.
simsurace:
--- Quote from: Andrea B. on April 09, 2016, 22:02:19 ---Dust inside the lens does not affect the photo.
Fibers could possibly affect the photo? Depends on how big and where they happen to be currently sitting inside the lens.
It used to be that optical glass had "bubbles" and that was considered a siqn of good quality glass!! The bubble did not affect the image capture or image quality.
--- End quote ---
Normal small dust particles are normally not visible in the photographs, but bigger particles can adversely impact the imaging performance.
As an example, when I got my 50/1.2 it had some sand sitting on some internal elements. I don't know how it got there, but I had been warned by the seller, so that was fine. Initially I didn't notice any ill effects, but after some use I noticed that the sand was visible in the bokeh as small dots. In addition, in strong contrasty light (e.g. when used near a campfire, where this fast lens allows to take pictures without any additional light), the sand particles 'lit up' and showed in the pictures as glowing balls of fire. The reason probably was that the light was forming a sort of 'corona' effect around the sand and also the sand was probably bouncing the light back and forth in the lens.
Anyway, I had the lens cleaned and serviced and it looked like new afterwards, no such effects could be observed since.
Bjørn Rørslett:
The ray bundles inside the optics are way out of focus. Thus dust particles as such does not appreciable affect image quality, but see caveats below. They do form interference patterns that may show up in blur circles from strong light sources, however, but that by itself won't kill sharpness.
What does destroy image contrast and thereby sharpness is a film deposit over the entire surface of element(s), such as seen with lenses from a smoker's home. This film typically is grey or brownish and definitively will reduce contrast. This acts almost as having inserted a soft-focus filter into the optics. Such lenses need a thorough spring cleaning for their performance to be reinvigorated.
Some wide angle lenses are susceptible to dust specks on front (causes bright specks in the image) or dirt and smudges on the rear element (might case shadows or darker spots).
Bjørn Rørslett:
Andrea: Bjørn hated the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8G VR for other reasons and sold his too.
I don't hate a lens. It's just a tool with little or no voice of its own. However, I actively dislike some optical designs which is an entirely different matter.
In the case of the AFS 105/2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor besides its bulk and poor handling, decisive factors were the chromatic aberrations in particular the annoying axial colour type, and last but not the least the heavy focus "breathing" making tripod work up close very frustrating. First time I did an A/B comparison against the Voigtländer 125 mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar, the Nikkor was doomed. I sold it after a month of frustrations, and this is the first Micro-Nikkor I ever have got rid of.
richardHaw:
--- Quote from: simsurace on April 10, 2016, 00:58:11 ---Normal small dust particles are normally not visible in the photographs, but bigger particles can adversely impact the imaging performance.
As an example, when I got my 50/1.2 it had some sand sitting on some internal elements. I don't know how it got there, but I had been warned by the seller, so that was fine. Initially I didn't notice any ill effects, but after some use I noticed that the sand was visible in the bokeh as small dots. In addition, in strong contrasty light (e.g. when used near a campfire, where this fast lens allows to take pictures without any additional light), the sand particles 'lit up' and showed in the pictures as glowing balls of fire. The reason probably was that the light was forming a sort of 'corona' effect around the sand and also the sand was probably bouncing the light back and forth in the lens.
Anyway, I had the lens cleaned and serviced and it looked like new afterwards, no such effects could be observed since.
--- End quote ---
my damage test is to shoot bokeh balls underexposed and to shoot bright lights :o :o :o these will show up everything ::)
the dust inside the 50 1.2 is common. i cleaned mine and i am going to make a tutorial. it is basically stuff from the barrel that got loose, in this case the black paint
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version