Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF

[ColinM]

"The Sigma's e.g. are currently out of stock everywhere"

    On the amazon.co.uk site there are 2 used ones for sale at >€450

"Did anyone try the Tamron 90mm? This seems to be quite a nice lens"

   I owned a MF version back in the 1980's and loved it. 

[MEPER]

In this test the Nikkor 105 VR does not deserve to be called a "Nikkor"?
Or what is going on?

The Sony is best and the Laowa probably the best if price is considered......
https://petapixel.com/2020/04/15/macro-lens-test-canon-nikon-sony-laowa-sigma-and-tamron-compared/

[Birna Rørslett]

I'm not surprised. The AFS 105 Micro ED is not my favourite Micro-Nikkor -- to say the least. My results with that lens echo those reported in the linked report.  I sold it off after a few months of ownership.

The 100mm f/2.8 LAOWA is very good, if you can live with a manual focus lens and its very short working distance as magnification goes to 1:1 and beyond. NO CPU is a downside but once C-19 situation improves I hope Erik can assist me in "chipping" the LAOWA. We joined forces on getting the legendary CV 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar "chipped" and the challenges were quickly sorted by "Dr. Lens".

[MEPER]

If I should say something positive about the 105 VR then when looking at the f8 image the contrast is lower but still the resolution can be high?
The small "round" thing at the right in the image seems to be reproduced best by the Nikkor?    ....more gray-tones?

The f2.8 image is bad......

[Roland Vink]

The idea of a 180/4.0 ED-IF Micro is a great one. Does anyone have a time machine available? 

I recall that Nikon did have a patent for such a lens, not sure if it was AF or MF. It would be nice to have a more compact telephoto macro, the recent 150 - 200mm macros from various manufacturers have had a max aperture of f/3.5 or f/2.8, so are relatively large lenses. For macro work, generally f/4 is more than adequate.

Not a macro lens but the Voigtländer SL 180mm f/4 APO Lanthar focuses very close for a lens of this type. Adding a closeup lens should give it more or less macro capabilities. A pity it is so rare and expensive. Lack of a tripod collar is also an issue; the lens is not heavy but working from a tripod greatly improves handling for macro work.

[MEPER]

I made a quick test shot with Micro-Nikkor 200/4 AI on Z50 at closets distance (0.7m) at f4.
The whole frame and then a 100% crop. I removed as much of the CA I could using NX-D and there are not much left. So lens can produce a useful image......even at f4?
The light was just a flash direct at the watch.

[David H. Hartman]

As Dave writes, 200mm gives you more working distance.
However, this is often not the case for internal focusing designs - specially not up close where the 'focus breathing' of the optics loose focal length.
Not all IF designs do,, just see the long debate on this for the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S zooms where the lenses behave very different from each other.
So a unit focusing lens is often preferred for macro work when working distance is important.
This is why I love the 105mm f/4 Ais Micro Nikkor. Often the best compromise.

The 300/4.5 ED-IF AI with PN-11, PK-13, PK-12 and full built in focus as **suggested by John Shaw gives an image magnification 0.5x (1:2) with a free working distance of 962mm. (a Lens cradle is indicated) **John may have only recommended a PK-13 or a PN-11. I don't remember.

The 200/4.0 IF AI with no tubes or close-up lenses offers an image magnification of 0.5x and a free working distance of 495mm.

The AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 at 180mm offers an image ratio of 0.5x and a free working distance of only 244mm. (This is good example of what Eric Lund writes concerning IF designs. 244mm at 1:2 is not what one would expect from a conventional or unit focusing 180mm lens.)

—

I probably wrote this for a discussion at Photo.Net's Nikon Forum (in a previous life)...

There are two manual focus 105mm Micro-Nikkors: an f/2.8 and an f/4.0. You should consider both. The 105/2.8 AIS Micro makes a good general purpose 105 and macro. As far the change in focal length I estimated it at 92mm for the 105/2.8 Micro but the lenses has CRC and change in focal length seems complex. Notice the free working distance of the 105/4.0 v. 105/2.8 at 1:2 and 1:1. The 105/4.0 AI or AIS Micro-Nikkor is probably the better and certainly the easier lens to use for more serious close-up and macro photography.

 Here is a table of free working distance that in includes the 105mm Micros...

Lens, 1:2 followed by 1:1...

55/3.5 Compensating
110mm
55mm

55/3.5 AI
111mm
56mm

55/2.8 AIS
113mm
56mm

60/2.8 AF
122mm
73mm

105/2.8D AF (not my measurement)
---
136mm

105/2.8 AIS
244mm
173mm

105/4.0 AI (& AIS)
277mm (The best at 1:2 of this table)
172mm

All measurements are mine except for the AF 105/2.8D Micro-Nikkor. That measurement came from the Nikon brochure Nikon World of Close-up Photography, 1994. Notice that the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor has the best free working distance at 1:2 by a comfortable margin and is virtually tied for best at 1:1 with the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.

 I have no experience with the 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikkor. If you can afford the 85/2.8 PC you can very likely afford both the 85/2.8 PC and 105/4.0 AI or AIS. The latter can be had for a very reasonable price.



Hope this helps,



Dave Hartman.

[David H. Hartman]

I made a quick test shot with Micro-Nikkor 200/4 AI on Z50 at closets distance (0.7m) at f4.
The whole frame and then a 100% crop. I removed as much of the CA I could using NX-D and there are not much left. So lens can produce a useful image......even at f4?
The light was just a flash direct at the watch.

Perhaps more testing will reveal a use for my old friend, the 200/4.0 IF Micro? It appeares that I chose a worst case for my tests yesterday.

[MEPER]

Yes, it was the AI version of the 200/4.0 IF micro.

[MEPER]

I tried the same quick test using AFS 105/2.8 micro set at full aperture (it shows 4.8 ). It only shows 2.8 at infinity but lens was set full open.
First image the full frame and the second a 100% crop. I think the "o" in Roamer shows some sharpness. Watch and lens was not parallel.
This lens has to be stopped down a bit to get sharp images. Maybe fine for portraits full open but then the CA can be a problem.

[MEPER]

Stopped down to f9 it is a bit better but not the best lens for 1:1 macro work.
Images looks better at longer distances and seems to have less CA.

[MEPER]

To give a bit of credit to the 105/2.8 VR an image at a bit longer distance at f9.
The CA is much less. The lens does not like metallic reflections where highlights are blown out. It will create CA around the edge.

[Jack Dahlgren]

To give a bit of credit to the 105/2.8 VR an image at a bit longer distance at f9.
The CA is much less. The lens does not like metallic reflections where highlights are blown out. It will create CA around the edge.

Specular reflections like from watches and other metal are troublesome with a lot of lenses. Soft lighting is a way around this issue.

[Roland Vink]

I probably wrote this for a discussion at Photo.Net's Nikon Forum (in a previous life)...

Wow, I'm sure I remember that post!

Notice that the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor has the best free working distance at 1:2 by a comfortable margin and is virtually tied for best at 1:1 with the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.



The space between the lens and subject might be very similar, but the overall focus distance of the 105/4 is greater. The distance between the film/sensor plane and the subject is 420mm, compared to about 380mm for the AIS 105/2.8 micro. For subjects in hard to reach places sometimes that extra distance makes a difference.

By comparison, the AF 200/4 micro focuses down to 0.5m at 1:1, more than the 105mm micros but not as much as you might expect. Being an IF design the focal length is greatly reduced at close range.

[David H. Hartman]

The "Free working distance" I refer to is the distance from the front edge of the lens, the leading edge of the filter threads to the subject plane. Add a 3mm thick filter and I loose 3mm of free working distance. Extend a hood and I loose even more.