Author Topic: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF  (Read 1952 times)

MEPER

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 664
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2021, 08:29:10 »
There is also the Reflex Nikkor 500/8N which can focus down to 1.5m.
It is a cheap lens but difficult to use and get sharp images......but it sometime surprises with sharp images :-)   ....so I guess it is a question to use the right technique.....
I remember that I took an image of TV monitor at close distance and I could see every RGB line.....so it can make macro shots also. And it has no CA.

Bern

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2021, 09:42:43 »
I use the non-stabilized Tamron 90mm. The front element is well recessed in the barrel but the tube extends quite a bit like the Nikkor 105 f2.8 AFD. At 1:1, the effective working distance is also short especially when the lens hood is used. This version uses a clutch mechanism to engage the AF. Here are a few samples from the lens.


Did anyone try the Tamron 90mm? This seems to be quite a nice lens.
Keep shooting,
Bern

MEPER

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 664
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2021, 17:03:26 »
In the last image......who won the fight?

David H. Hartman

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2439
  • I Doctor Photographs... :)
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2021, 20:46:48 »
The 200/4.0 IF AI Micro-Nikkor isn't the best example to make a point of IF focal length loss at close focus since it has a healthy 495mm of free working distance at 1/2 life size. My estimate is it should have a free working distance of something like 550mm to 600mm. Perhaps someone who understands optical design better than I can comment on this.

The AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED Micro-Nikkor although it's not an IF design has only 244mm of free working distance at 1/2 life size. This is much less than what one would expect of a 180mm macro lens. It's the same free working distance as the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor which itself is 33mm less free working distance compared to the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor at 1/2 life size. Out of curiosity I compared the angle of view of my AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED Micro-Nikkor to my 180/2.8 AIS at or near infinity. The angle of view was identical or damned close. The AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 has some amazing and desirable features but free working distance at 1/2 life size is not one of them. I estimate the lens to subject distance for a unit focusing 180mm macro lens should be about 500mm to 540mm so it looses significant focal length to focus close.

I remember a Nikkor zoom lens discussed on various media that offered the angle of view and focal length of about 135mm when set to marked 200mm and focus to about 2m. This lens, probably an early 70-200/2.8 ED-IF Zoom Nikkor, is an example of the IF focal length loss at close focus. I think Tony Northrup commented on the following model noting that it didn't have such a pronounced loss of focal length at 200mm and close focus.

Anyway I always wonder what true focal length of an IF design is at minimum focus distance.

Dave
 
Beatniks are out to make it rich
Oh no, must be the season of the witch!

Bern

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2021, 03:37:18 »
the bug on the right corner chickened out and flew away as soon as the spider moved closer  :)
In the last image......who won the fight?
Keep shooting,
Bern

Øivind Tøien

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1389
  • Fairbanks, Alaska
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2021, 05:56:01 »

In the 105mm range, why not try out the 105mm f/4 AIS micro. It has excellent performance, as noted above great working distance and is not a very large investment. The AIS version has a nice locking knob for the focus collar. I like the way it "paints" the background.
#1

D5100 with 105 mm f/4 micro AIS @ f.7.1, 1/1250, ISO 400 (lens is chipped).

#2

D5100 with 105 mm f/4 micro AIS @ f/8, 1/60, ISO 100

With PN-11 that came along with it (actually my reason for getting this lens, one could say I got the lens by "accident"):
#3

NIKON D7100 with 105mm f/4 micro AIS +PN11 @ f/8,  25s, ISO 100, UV-induced visual fluorescence (UVIVF).

Øivind Tøien

David H. Hartman

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2439
  • I Doctor Photographs... :)
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2021, 06:58:24 »
the bug on the right corner chickened out and flew away as soon as the spider moved closer  :)

The spider should have read the B. F. Skinner article I read. It would have had a delicious meal.
Beatniks are out to make it rich
Oh no, must be the season of the witch!

mxbianco

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 580
  • A teddy bear from the Alps, rarely fierce
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2021, 14:34:49 »
the bug on the right corner chickened out and flew away as soon as the spider moved closer  :)

A moth has no weapons except trying to scare the spider with size; in the end the moth won because it saved its hide...

You caught the right moment, congrats!


In the 90 mm range I have the Voigtlander 90mm sl-2 MF (Nikon F mount),  already chipped by maker, and with a dedicated close-up lens. Works nicely. Focussing on the Z6 or Z7 is a delight if you map one of the buttons as a dedicated 200% (or even 100%) zoom.

I have had good results at close range with the Reflex-Nikkor (new version) 500mm/8: it focuses down to 1.5 m, but you need a lot of light to use sufficiently short exposures when used hand-held. A monopod can be useful.
 
Ciao from Massimo
Since evolution has given us TWO ears and ONE mouth, we are supposed (me included) to be doing more listening than talking.

mxbianco

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 580
  • A teddy bear from the Alps, rarely fierce
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2021, 14:39:22 »
I messed up and pressed the Quote button instead of the Modify.

Let me add that I like a lot the μNikkor 105/4 Ai with and without its dedicated extension tube, and I find the zoom function of the 70-180/5.6 very useful. Sometimes I use the latter as a walk-around lens with maybe a wideangle in my pocket. No AF on Z6/Z7, too bad. I have other cameras where it does AF (D3, D600, D810, D500...)

Ciao from Massimo
Since evolution has given us TWO ears and ONE mouth, we are supposed (me included) to be doing more listening than talking.

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5943
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2021, 18:31:35 »
Øivind those images are amazing!
Agree about the background! Very smooth bokeh;)
Erik Lund

David H. Hartman

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2439
  • I Doctor Photographs... :)
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #55 on: February 27, 2021, 18:33:02 »
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.

Like Sisyphus, I am bound to hell the lenses I currently own!

Perhaps I should test my 200/4.0 IF AI Micro in less demanding circumstances? I may find I have a use for the lens with my D850 if I avoid the most troublesome of situations. I would not buy this lens today for use with my D850 and would not buy it for a Z7 II or D500. 

Similar purple/magenta blooming of highlights to what I got with the 200/4.0 IF AI Micro can be seen here...

https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9875.0

Dave
Beatniks are out to make it rich
Oh no, must be the season of the witch!

Øivind Tøien

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1389
  • Fairbanks, Alaska
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2021, 06:06:10 »
Øivind those images are amazing!
Agree about the background! Very smooth bokeh;)

Thanks, Erik. Of course backgrounds tend to be fairly smooth at this image scale, however I find that the 105/4 micro has a special character - may be related to the hexagonal aperture noticeable in the second capture. Usually that is looked upon as a disadvantage, but I feel it adds a special quality that is not the straight as smooth a possible bokeh often sought after.
Øivind Tøien

Jack Dahlgren

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1356
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2021, 16:15:34 »
Like Sisyphus, I am bound to the lenses I currently own!

https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9875.0

Dave

Poor Sisyphus didn’t have eBay to sell his rock and perhaps purchase one which rolled better. I too have strong attachment to what I have, the foundational stones of the photos I have taken. But I am starting to think it may be better to think of things with the lightness of arrows.

Roland Vink

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1341
  • Nikon Nerd from New Zealand
    • Nikon Database
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2021, 21:53:51 »
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.
Yes, understood. I was just trying to explain that even thought the AIS 105/4 and AIS 105/2.8 have almost identical free working distance at 1:1 (no filters or hoods attached), the longer focus distance of the 105/4 can be useful. A healthy free working distance is important for shy subjects like insects and other small animals which don't like cameras intruding into their personal space, and also prevents the camera/lens from blocking light on the subject.

But I have also had cases where the free working distance was perfectly adequate but the longer overall focus distance of the 105/4 gave me more freedom in placing my tripod. Sometimes it simply isn't possible to move the tripod any closer to the subject without falling off the edge of a bank, or it's not possible to get the tripod any higher up a tree. Or moving the tripod any closer will scare away the subject. This is where the longer focus distancer of the 105/4 can sometimes make a useful (if small) difference.

Roland Vink

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1341
  • Nikon Nerd from New Zealand
    • Nikon Database
Re: Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2021, 21:58:24 »
Thanks, Erik. Of course backgrounds tend to be fairly smooth at this image scale, however I find that the 105/4 micro has a special character - may be related to the hexagonal aperture noticeable in the second capture. Usually that is looked upon as a disadvantage, but I feel it adds a special quality that is not the straight as smooth a possible bokeh often sought after.
The 105/4 has seven aperture blades to the blurs are heptagonal.
Almost all AI and AIS lenses are the same...