105 f2.8 Micro-Nikkor ED-IF VR - sucking dust internally

[chambeshi]

To put it mildly, I was surprised to discover my brand new 105 VR had managed to get dust inside the lens barrel - plainly visible on the inner rear element assembly.

The context is as follows - I purchased this lens brand new last December to complement my veteran 55 f2.8 and 60 f2.8 Micro-Nikkors; which I have used for 2+ and 1+ decades, respectively. I got the 60mm mainly for its 1:1 magnification (not needing the PK-13 ext ring). I often used a SB-21B or SB-29 for macrowork (the 21B on that stalwart workhouse, the F3).

I found the VR capability on this super-sharp 105 Micro-Nikkor inappropriate for close up work; too often my subjects needed flash. Call me old fashioned, but the lack of manual  control over aperture in this gelded lens also rankled.  G lenses sure work okay for much contemporary photography, but I prefer AIS or even AF-D with aperture rings intact for macro photography. I know I will need this versatility.

True to the focal length of earlier classic Nikkors, this 105 VR is a superb portrait lens but it's too bloated, heavy, and above all costly, compared to others of the same speed. All in all, I had yet to take my brand new 105 into the field for serious nature photography.  On the few occasions I used this 105 VR, I stuck to my protocol when working in the dust and allied African hazards; so always very careful to keep lens caps on at changes. I stored this new purchase in its soft cover in a sealed camera case.

Last week, fortunate to be in London but short on sorely needed quid, and after some agonizing, I presented my 105 as a Mint trade-in toward the purchase of a coveted Nikkor lens. This was at a well known store. I was startled when the standard check, by the gentleman serving me, revealed 2 dust fragments (fine hairs) inside the body of this 105. These can only have been sucked into the lens! Shocking News indeed, especially given it's barely done any work! I was told a pro cleaning would cost a cool 100 quid, and so slashed the value on a Mint lens. Anyway, I took the swift strategic decision and traded in the culprit and left with a 70-180 Micro-Nikkor. I lost on the fiscal side of this deal, but it's fully justified as - finally - I now own the AF-D 70-180. It works best in manual mode. But one has the versatility, of course to use it as a medium zoom for other subjects.

The encircled "10" on these costly plastic G Nikkors does not mean 10 years life expectancy, necessarily. Choose your smaller time-unit! Sure I could have waved the Warranty at Nikon but I was in a difficult situation with a critical deal at stake. This latest experience reinforces my other misgiving as to where Nikkor stands (sits?) today. AF-S, N-coatings and VR sure are great but what a pity about the plastic chassis. Above all I am now very skeptical of the lack of basic dust-sealing in what is sold as a Pro lens. My personal view is the older AF-D Nikkors stand apart and stand high, and in any case Manual focus is the standard in close up....

Well, Good Riddance to that 105G VR. And be warned. Who knows what this Fluff-Sucker might yet accumulate. I can only surmise it would have let me down in the central African interior; yet here I have worked with a classic Micro-Nikkor since 1988. Both my 55 f2.8 and 60 AF-D Micro-Nikkors have served well being worked hard. The 55 often worked through thick and thin as a normal lens on my FM2 in the pre-digital days.

[Andrea B.]

Fortunately - for anyone dreading the G/plastic/etc on modern Nikkors - there are vast amounts of good old Nikon AIS lenses and D lenses still available. As well as nifty newer items like Zeiss Otus-es and certain Sigmas. And for close-up work there is always the Vöightlander Apo-Lanthar 150, a heavy but sweet gem.

I have dual copies of the Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8: one old D version and one new G version. I also have kept my old 105/2.8D Micro-Nikkor. Sold off my Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8G VR. Too much chatter in the VR.

As far as dust-sucking, I don't think it is a particular fault of the entire line of the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8G AFS VR lenses. You just got a dust-sucking copy. I had that happen once with another Nikkor lens. One copy inhaled dust, the other did not. When I had the 105 VR, it did not get dusty. It is probably important to look for this kind of thing before warranties expire.

It might be that Nikon repair under warranty could have replaced the gaskets and remedied the dust-sucking? That said, the gasket on the 105 VR was not particularly good. Easily snagged.

As for the Nikkor plastic, my particular take on it is that it provides more bounce and therefore less breakage and dings. Ask me how I know or make the obvious deduction there!!! The plastic also makes for a less heavy lens. But -- everyone has their own take on the plastic vs. metal discussion. Just remember there is bad plastic and then there is good plastic.

Bjørn hated the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8G VR for other reasons and sold his too. 

Anyway, welcome to Nikongear, Chambeshi !! We look forward to seeing some of your work.

[richardHaw]

thats an easy lens to open up except for the front

it doest suck air that much but the fibre couldve come from the bottom. it might be fibres from the bag
mine is a heavily used but is pristine inside. the 70-200 is a workhorse but is clean as well save for a fibre. the 24-70 is heavily used and is dusty inside

[pluton]

Does dust inside do any harm?  Can't the outer glass surfaces be easily cleaned?  Don't all lenses, cameras, and just about anything else that exists in our atmosphere have dust inside?

[Andrea B.]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

Does dust inside do any harm?

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]

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.

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]

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.

my damage test is to shoot bokeh balls underexposed and to shoot bright lights 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

[Andrea B.]

OK, B. "actively disliked" his 105/2.8G VR but I HATED mine for all the reasons mentioned plus the clatter and chatter whether the VR was respectively off or on. 
It was/is sharp though.

[richardHaw]

the IQ was a bit worse than the 2.8D on mine. however, the AF was useful. and yes, i use AF on 1:1 magnification even with a bit of an extension ring (KENKO). it helps me a lot for chasing bugs. the VR was rarely used. i only use the VR on rare instances when i use this lens to shoot something else.

HAW_0929 by mrBabaero, on Flickr

this made me miss shooting bugs, i am going to the park in awhile for this...

[chambeshi]

Thank you all for all the most interesting feedback Invaluable, in fact, across several subjects. My hasty decision to sell my 105 Micro-Nikkor VR was under pressures of time and fiscal context. And I shudder to think how it MIGHT have let me down in the Congo or Zambia or somewhere in yet more of once in a lifetime finds of new species etc.

Most of my macro photos have documented specimens collected in the field during biodiversity surveys under museum auspices. Opportunities such as a horseshoe bat new to science or first record of a forest snake to Angola or Zambia etc demand solid equipment. This is where the 55 Micro-Nikkor on my F3 and latterly a F90x always delivered....

A herpetologist colleague has a similar nikon setup - albeit D750 - and he uses the AF-D 105 Micro-Nikkor with fine results. I agree fully with some of you that VR on the newest incarnation enables the 105 Micro-Nikkor to work in lower light, but that's not what I bought it for.

I will test this 70-180 properly once back in the S Hemisphere. But so far it's one impressive instrument.

so, grateful thanks on the Micro-Nikkors' attributes, and optical impacts of internal lens lurkers - and their extirpation!

kind regards

chambeshi

PS If a reader of this thread might happen to be this week's purchaser of a Used 105 2.8G VR Micro-Nikkor from Aperture Photographic in central London W1T 1JE ...well i hope this Mint lens delivers fine photos for you, and the piece of internal fluff can be cleaned and future intruders blocked.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Congratulations on your acquisition of the 70-180 Micro-Nikkor. Optically it is a very interesting design with a very good to excellent performance, and distinguished by having an effective aperture independent of focused distance. The capability of using the zoom to finely adjust the frame to perfection in terms of composition is most helpful. AF is a joke and you should just tape down the A/M selector ring as this also will keep the lens complete when the ring sooner or later snaps into two parts and even make the entire lens fall apart. At the same time, do put a drop of superglue or epoxy into the Focus Limiter switch to ensure it always is on 'Full'.

A few other things to learn about this lens;

• Watch your background carefully, as this lens sometimes can produce a bokeh on the 'nervous' side
• The tripod mount is underdimensioned and quite prone to vibrations. Stiffen it up by sinking stainless steel bolts through the foot
• Unlike other Micro-Nikkors, the 70-180 is not a true flat-field design. Thus stop down a little extra for flat subjects
• The stock hood HB-14 is very short at the 180mm setting. Put a HN-23 on the filter threads to set the matters straight. It glides inside the HB-14. You still need the stock hood so as to avoid side bumps to the susceptible protruding front end of the lens casing
• Finally, this lens combines nicely with a 6T close-up attachment to give additional magnification

[Bjørn Rørslett]

My 70-180 after the first series of modifications. The tripod foot is strengthened by two stainless steel bolts run through the bespoke Arca plate (thus said plate is permanently allied to the 70-180). These bolts are 25 mm long so go all the way to the rotating collar. On this side view they are barely visible at the base of the foot (rear part).

I have further enlarged the all too tiny locking knob for the tripod collar. A simple approach using the rear lens cap for a "D" cine lens just hammered onto the original knob and secured with Epoxy glue and a rubber strip to improve grip.

The HN-23 hood is in place but will not be visible until the lens is zoomed to the long end of its focal range.

The focus limiter is now permanently locked to the "Full" position using Epoxy glue (most lenses can be improved by some Araldite judiciously applied to them).

The A/M selector ring had not been taped at this point, but as I observed the dreaded hairline crack just a few week later, I locked the ring at "M" position and covered it with tar tape (the kind you use on cycle handlebars and hockey sticks; it spot-welds itself in use).