The DC should have nothing to do with anything. If set to zero, the lens is a straight optic. I have the Nikon 135/2DC and the same holds true with that lens also.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
A quick comparison of the 105mm f/2 DC and the 100mm f/2.8 APO Elmarit R
- Thread starter Stuart Richardson
- Start date
Stuart Richardson
Active member
I am sorry it was not helpful to you. It was relevant to me because I own both lenses. I don't really see them as apples and oranges either -- both are approximately the same focal length, they are only one stop different, and I use both of them as general purpose lenses. In any case, I think I am going to have to do the test again, as the 105mm does not appear to be autofocusing correctly. It front focuses slightly, so that may have harmed its sharpness.
As for the price, I will agree that new there is a large difference. But the 100mm APO macro has been around for years, and there are many on the used market which are priced very reasonably. I got mine (a rom version) as a demo for around 1500 dollars a few years ago, but I was looking at KEH last week and they had an EX copy of the 3 cam version for 1300 dollars. It appears like someone bought it...it was a good deal.
But anyway, it was and is relevant for me, because I was comparing how the 100-105mm lenses compared between the two systems. I am in the process of switching from Leica R to Nikon, so I need to figure out the different capabilities of the equipment I use if I am going to use it to best effect.
As for the price, I will agree that new there is a large difference. But the 100mm APO macro has been around for years, and there are many on the used market which are priced very reasonably. I got mine (a rom version) as a demo for around 1500 dollars a few years ago, but I was looking at KEH last week and they had an EX copy of the 3 cam version for 1300 dollars. It appears like someone bought it...it was a good deal.
But anyway, it was and is relevant for me, because I was comparing how the 100-105mm lenses compared between the two systems. I am in the process of switching from Leica R to Nikon, so I need to figure out the different capabilities of the equipment I use if I am going to use it to best effect.
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Marc -- I am sorry if people are interpreting it as definitive, but there is really nothing I can do to control that. I said that it was just a quick comparison and I thought I would share it with the rest of you. I didn't claim to be an expert then, and I don't claim that now.
I appreciate the advice about the cable release and the scans, however. I would have used one, but the Nikons don't accept normal cable releases and I don't have their 60 dollar one yet...and don't really feel like paying 60 bucks for a cable release. I suppose I will use the self timer. I will try to scan at least the crop areas at 6300 dpi, but I don't think I will see much of a difference. The reason I did not do it is because it would have taken me hours and hours to do it, as well as taking up much more space. Anyway, it is what it is. People need to decide for themselves, but for me, given my workflow and my use, I found it a useful comparison.
I appreciate the advice about the cable release and the scans, however. I would have used one, but the Nikons don't accept normal cable releases and I don't have their 60 dollar one yet...and don't really feel like paying 60 bucks for a cable release. I suppose I will use the self timer. I will try to scan at least the crop areas at 6300 dpi, but I don't think I will see much of a difference. The reason I did not do it is because it would have taken me hours and hours to do it, as well as taking up much more space. Anyway, it is what it is. People need to decide for themselves, but for me, given my workflow and my use, I found it a useful comparison.
Lars
Active member
Stuart
Maybe my comment came across as harsh, didn't mean it that way, sorry about that.
I think that rather than the price differential, it's the 2.0 vs 2.8 brightness that makes these two lenses different beasts. "Only one stop" means twice the front lens surface - that's a lot of glass, and I imagine that f/2 would require different optical compromises than f/2.8. Would you compare a 50 f/1.0 to a f/1.4 and expect no compromises on the brighter lens? (admittedly not the same thing, but a relevant analogy)
Another thing re macro lenses is that they are often designed for reproduction work (at least in the large format world) so resolution and flat field become design priorities in quite a different way than in a portrait lens.
Another comment re the DC-Nikkors: They are mechanically complex and therefore a bit fragile. Make sure you treat yours as such. I had my 135 DC serviced at great expense because I had been sloppy. The lens had been bumped and the defocusing helicoid was misaligned and jammed.
Now, if you could find a 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, that would be an interesting comparison. I sold mine (first AFD generation) because it was too sharp and contrasty.
Lars
Maybe my comment came across as harsh, didn't mean it that way, sorry about that.
I think that rather than the price differential, it's the 2.0 vs 2.8 brightness that makes these two lenses different beasts. "Only one stop" means twice the front lens surface - that's a lot of glass, and I imagine that f/2 would require different optical compromises than f/2.8. Would you compare a 50 f/1.0 to a f/1.4 and expect no compromises on the brighter lens? (admittedly not the same thing, but a relevant analogy)
Another thing re macro lenses is that they are often designed for reproduction work (at least in the large format world) so resolution and flat field become design priorities in quite a different way than in a portrait lens.
Another comment re the DC-Nikkors: They are mechanically complex and therefore a bit fragile. Make sure you treat yours as such. I had my 135 DC serviced at great expense because I had been sloppy. The lens had been bumped and the defocusing helicoid was misaligned and jammed.
Now, if you could find a 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, that would be an interesting comparison. I sold mine (first AFD generation) because it was too sharp and contrasty.
Lars
bensonga
Well-known member
Just found this thread.....slightly off topic question, but does anyone know if there is a signficant difference (optically) between the ROM and 3 cam versions of the Leica 100mm APO macro Elmarit lens? I've got a line on a EX+ condition 3 cam version which I'm thinking of using with my R8.
Gary
Gary
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Hi Gary -- as far as I know, they are no changes in the optical formula of the 100mm APO elmarit R.
