Nikon Macro Decision

[jonoslack]

Hi there
I'm starting from scratch with my lenses for the D3, and the next step is a macro lens. To this end I visited Robert White on Tuesday to have a proper look at the zeiss lenses (the obvious choice I thought). They are LOVELY, and I came within an inch of buying the 100mm f2 on the spot; but it was expensive, and the focusing throw was very big at close range.

Worth mentioning that I don't use macro for product, but for plants and detail shots at close range.

Today I dug out an old 28-105 Nikon lens, which has a useable macro option and took it out for an hour or so to aid the thinking process.

It was a typical day in the UK - drab, grey and with a light breeze - everything was moving back and forth . . . .even the old autofocus on the lens made it possible to get decent shots, with the manual focus on the Zeiss lens I wouldn't have had a prayer.

So, I guess I'm off to get the nikkor 105 AFS VR.

here are a couple of samples from our drab day (auto ISO is a REAL bonus here).

Coming in to land:

Gordon bennett, it's an alien

 

[woodyspedden]

Hey Jono

I think the 105 VR is a superb lens and you will be happy with it. Like all macro lenses if you do manual focus you will deal with a long focus throw.

The only downside to the 100mm focal length is working distance. I have the 105 but from a past (Nikon) life I also have the superb 200 4.0. Slower lens to be sure but produces wonderful files and of course gives you twice the working distance. Nice for those occasions when shooting insects etc.

Just for your edification.

Woody

 

[jonoslack]

Hey Jono

I think the 105 VR is a superb lens and you will be happy with it. Like all macro lenses if you do manual focus you will deal with a long focus throw.

The only downside to the 100mm focal length is working distance. I have the 105 but from a past (Nikon) life I also have the superb 200 4.0. Slower lens to be sure but produces wonderful files and of course gives you twice the working distance. Nice for those occasions when shooting insects etc.

Just for your edification.

Woody

HI Woody
I did think of that - or of trying to find a 70-180 macro (I used to love that lens). The 28-105 was from one of my past Nikon lives.

It's a fairly old (and fairly heavy) lens that one though.

But I think that the AFS will really help with bugs, perhaps more than the longer reach - and there's nothing to stop one putting on a teleconverter as well, and the combination of the 105 and a teleconverter is still cheaper than the 200 f4!

The other option is the nice sigma 150mm.

Decisions Decisions

 

[harmsr]

Jono,

FYI - I think the Nikon 105 is just a stellar lens. See some of the comments and photos in the Zeiss 100 thread.

The bad news is that you can't use the Nikon 105 with any of Nikon's Teleconverters. They don't physically mate up. The teleconverter extends into the lens and the 105 has its rear glass extending out.

Best,

Ray

 

[vieri]

Hey there Jono,

I would definitely recommend the 105 VR - fantastic lens, AF-S while a tad slower than that on your AF-S zooms is WAY faster and quieter than regular AF on any other macro lens - I got Sigma, the old Nikkors, no comparison there - and VR would help you very much for these handheld flower shots... overall, a winner lens! If you want to go shorter, then new 60 AF-S is supposed to be very very good too. I used a lot the 105 VR on the D2x (160mm FOV) and found it very good for my needing, so on the D3 it would be just perfect. Of course, YMMV.

Edit: I am not reposting here the pics I posted on the Zeiss thread to save bandwith, but you can see some there - PM if you need more samples.

 

[jonoslack]

Ray - Vieri Thank you
Vieri for pointing me in the right direction.
Ray for doing the testing that I wouldn't have done!

Reading that thread was like reading a thriller for me!

So, I guess I'll pick up the Nikon on the way to collect my son from university tomorrow.

Thank you again - this forum is soooo goood!

 

[nostatic]

I had the previous 105 (non-VR) and it was a very nice lens. I sold it to someone who had the VR and got rid of it, preferring the earlier non-VR version. So there seems to be some camp that thinks the earlier iteration is preferable. Ymmv.

 

[woodyspedden]

I had the earlier non VR 105 and gave it to my daughter for her use when I bought the, IMHO, far superior new VR version. The new one is considerably sharper and the colors seem crisper. Perhaps the gentleman you refer to simply preferred the somewhat softer rendition of the older lens?

Woody

 

[simonclivehughes]

I'm just building my Nikon system up and picked up the 60mm Micro-Nikkor. Since I don't chase creepy crawlies, and flowers and such keep still, the 60mm is fine, and, I wanted to keep the lenses as small as possible. It's funny when you see a lot of the reviews on macro lenses where people are complaining about the AF performance! I've never used a macro lens in any other mode than manual focus.

Looking forward to getting back into macro!!

Cheers,

 

[Greg Seitz]

Jono,

FYI - I think the Nikon 105 is just a stellar lens. See some of the comments and photos in the Zeiss 100 thread.

The bad news is that you can't use the Nikon 105 with any of Nikon's Teleconverters. They don't physically mate up. The teleconverter extends into the lens and the 105 has its rear glass extending out.

Best,

Ray

Hi Ray,

I'm able to use teleconverters with no problem with the 105 VR. The new 60mm does have the restriction you mention however.

The 105 VR really is in it's sweet spot on the D3 - pretty much flawless from wide open. It's a tiny bit weaker on the D300 but only when wide open.

Thanks,

Greg

The second third pics are with the 1.4 and without respectively from the same distance.

 

[robmac]

Just out of curiosity, what USM settings are folks finding best suited to D3 NEFs?

 

[TRSmith]

30 years ago I worked in a Biomedical Communications group that had a really well stocked equipment locker. The gent that ran the place was a gear head and really knew his stuff. I was fortunate to have access to pretty much every camera system available. Nothing but the best for that guy!

But the only bit of gear I ever miss or wish I had now (from those "old" days) is the Nikon 200 IF Macro lens. It probably is expensive today, but if I wanted a macro, I'd certainly consider the 200.

 

[Greg Seitz]

Just out of curiosity, what USM settings are folks finding best suited to D3 NEFs?

It really depends on what my ultimate output is as well as the subject matter. When I'm using Adobe Camera Raw for a landscape shot I use it to pre-sharpen and typically I'll use somewhere around 50 amount, .8 radius, and 35 detail which is a bit stronger than I use for most other cameras but it takes it very well.

On the output side once it's in photoshop it's totally dependent on what I plan on doing with it and whether I resize it or not. As an example, for a landscape shot that I want to look good at 100% on screen I might follow the pre-sharpening with something like 200 amount, .3 radius and 1 threshold. If I plane on reducing it to 50% size with bicubic sharper for onscreen I might instead use 80 amount, .4 radius, 0 threshold.

Thanks,

Greg

 

[robmac]

Thanks Greg. Had read that D3 files require some more 'firm' sharpening, was just curious how different from what I see with 1Ds2 and Zeiss/Leica lenses. Doesn't seem that strong at first glance.

 

[harmsr]

Greg,

Thanks for the correction on the teleconverter. I just re-tried my TC-17EII and you are correct. I have only had the convertor for a few weeks. (I bought it for the last Nascar race here in Phoenix that I shot.)

The first one which I received did not function, it caused overexposure by 2 stops, caused focus issues, and did not fit on the 105VR. However, I actually bought it for use with the 70-200 VR. I called Roberts and they replaced it overnight with one that is working perfectly. Since the first one did not mount to the 105VR, I just assumed it would not. That first one must have been a Frankenstein version.

Best,

Ray

 

[jonoslack]

I've never used a macro lens in any other mode than manual focus.


Cheers,

Hi Simon
Then you're really missing something - the autofocus with manual override is great on the Nikon cameras - and a bit of a breeze soon gets those flowers a moving like a creepy crawly

I seen it said lots of times (only ever manual focus with macro). It used to be a necessity, but now autofocus can provide real help (you can, after all, lock it with a press of a button). It opens up possibilities with macro which just weren't there before.

 

[Greg Seitz]

Hi Simon
Then you're really missing something - the autofocus with manual override is great on the Nikon cameras - and a bit of a breeze soon gets those flowers a moving like a creepy crawly

I seen it said lots of times (only ever manual focus with macro). It used to be a necessity, but now autofocus can provide real help (you can, after all, lock it with a press of a button). It opens up possibilities with macro which just weren't there before.

I have to agree with Jono here - except my focus locks when I release the button since I've got my shutter release separate from the auto focus button. In fact, when the wind is blowing I sometimes fire off a burst of shots while using continuous focus and I can usually get a shot I'd never manage with manual focus alone since the auto focus can track a heck of a lot faster than I can.

Greg

 

[Vivek]

Looks like AF for general purpose is being clubbed with focus in the macro regime which is at or greater than 1X magnification.

There is a reason why Nikon designate these lenses as "micro".

The real Macronikkors were made for a Multiphot and are truly exceptional lenses (1X to 40X). These (macronikkors) were barrel lenses with no focus mounts.

I am impressed with the 85/2.8 PC Micro. The new 60/2.8 AFS could also be similar to this lens. Older micronikkors, I dislike them very much.

Here is a close-up with one of my current favorites.

S-Planar 120/4 hacked for Nikon F and with a tilt feature, wide open, D300.

 

[simonclivehughes]

Hi Simon
Then you're really missing something - the autofocus with manual override is great on the Nikon cameras - and a bit of a breeze soon gets those flowers a moving like a creepy crawly

I seen it said lots of times (only ever manual focus with macro). It used to be a necessity, but now autofocus can provide real help (you can, after all, lock it with a press of a button). It opens up possibilities with macro which just weren't there before.

While I agree with the concept, my experience has been that the DOF is so small at these working distances that it's better to manually focus. Perhaps with the D300's many focus points it might allow framing to work with AF, I'll just have to experiment.

Cheers,

 

[deepdiver]

I went diving yesterday with Nikon D80 + Nikon 105 VR
here are some of the results

Andree