Read a hands-on in-depth review of the Canon 1D MkIV from photo.net, rugged camera for sports photographers and photojournalists. Includes test shots and example images.
If you aren't sure what to get your photographer dad, we've got you covered with ideas ranging from equipment and photo storage to a formal critique or cool shades, in a price range from $25 to over...
When photographing a wedding, don't forget the details: the scene setters. Celebrity wedding photographer, Donna Newman, shares key tips to shooting these key non-portrait wedding shots.
The 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor, or 105 Micro for short, is probably
Nikon's most used macro lens. I believe the main reason for this, is
that the lens can, to some degree, serve triple duty. First of all,
it is a macro photography lens and it allows you to take photographs
at a 1:1 reproduction ratio, which means that a 24 by 36 mm subject
will fill the entire frame. Second, it makes a very good general purpose
short telephoto lens. Third, it is also at least a very reasonable
portrait lens. Please do not ask me why Nikon calls their macro lenses
"Micro" Nikkors.
Specifications
Construction
9 elements in 8 groups
Picture Angle
23° (20 ft.)
Minimum aperture
f/32
Maximum aperture
f/2.8 (*)
Minimum Focus Distance
31.4 cm / 12.2 inch
Maximum Reproduction Ratio
1:1
Filter Size
52mm
Dimensions (diameter x length)
76.2 x 104.1 mm / 3.0 x 4.1 inch
Weight
555 gram / 19.6 oz
(*) See note on effective aperture below.
Handling
The 105 Micro is a professional lens from Nikon; however, it has a plastic
outer shell and does not look as nice as the AF-S zooms. Still, the build
quality is very good. I have used mine for 3.5 years and have not encountered
any mechanical problems. It may be worth noting that the aperture ring
operation is somewhat less than smooth, but certainly not problematic.
The 105 Micro is not the best portrait lens. Because it is primarily
intended as a macro lens, it can be focussed very precisely at
distances shorter than 1 metre. The focussing throw from infinity
to 1.5 metres, however, is very short. This makes manual focussing
(on the eyes of your subject, most likely) rather difficult.
Other lenses are more suited for portraiture, for instance
the fast AF 85 f/1.4D lens and the AF 105 f/2 DC and AF 135 f/2 DC
lenses. These "Defocus Control" lenses allow you to change the
appearance of out of focus elements so that they appear softer or coarser.
I can find no fault with the 105 Micro when used as a general short
telephoto lens taking landscape or city photos.
The 105 Micro has an inner barrel containing the lens elements.
As you turn the focussing ring towards the shortest distance,
this barrel extends from the outer shell. A small amount of play
is normal, so you need not worry about that.
Especially during outdoor macro photography, it is very easy
to bump into twigs and leaves, causing smudges on your lens.
The front element of the 105 Micro is recessed, helping to
prevent this, as well as flare caused by direct sunlight.
It also lessens the need to use a protective UV filter.
As Philip Greenspun explains in his review
of the 60mm Micro-Nikkor, the Nikon system computes and displays
the effective aperture. If you set the aperture ring to the maximum
aperture of f/2.8 and turn the focussing ring to the minimum distance,
the camera will display f/5 and use that number when determining
exposure. Note that this is intended and correct behaviour and
certainly not a malfunction.
This lens is equipped with a M/AF switch: this means that you can
switch between manual focus and auto focus on the lens. I find this
much easier to use than the tiny switch on my F100 camera and I wish
more Nikkors used this system. One may note that it also complicates
the user interface, because now there are actually two switches
that prevent the AF system from engaging.
Manual focussing, particularly at distances shorter than 1 metre,
is very good. The focussing ring is well dampened and runs very
smoothly.
Image quality
The 105 Micro can deliver incredibly sharp photos. This lens enables
you to capture extremely fine detail, but make sure you use the right
film for the job (I prefer a fairly slow slide film, Fuji Sensia II 100
or Fuji Provia 100F). I have not encountered problems with light fall-off
or vignetting, but I should add that I hardly ever use this lens wide open.
The rendering of out-of-focus areas ("bokeh"), particularly highlights
is somewhat less pleasing; it appears somewhat harsh and I would rather have
it a bit softer.
The photo alongside this paragraph is a crop
from a larger image, scanned from negative, which I believe illustrates
the issue. The photo was taken at f/2.8 or perhaps f/4.
Note that the effect varies with the background and that it is
much less noticable if there is a darker background.
When photographing architecture with the 105 Micro and my F100, I
have noticed a strange problem which makes it seem the lens is
susceptible to flare. If I point the lens upwards to capture some
detail of a building (often with some bright sky present), the
viewfinder becomes somewhat "misty". It may just be an unlucky
combination of wide aperture and the F100 viewfinder, because it
is not nearly so much of a problem on the resulting slides.
Nevertheless, it is best to use a lens hood and to be careful.
A note on the accompanying photo: I distinctly remember the view
finder getting quite "misty" when taking this shot; the resulting
slide and scan seem to be alright.
If you are interested in MTF grades and other such numbers, you
are going to be disappointed twice. First, because I did not
perform my own MTF tests and second, because the 105 Micro
appears not to be the top performer in tests on other web sites.
According to
photozone.de,
the Nikkor scores "excellent" with a score of 4.47. However, both the
Canon EF 2.8 100mm Macro (non-USM) and the 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor score
"outstanding" at 4.57 and 4.63.
Similarly, on
www.photodo.com, the MTF grade for the 105 Micro-Nikkor is 3.9,
while the 60 mm Nikkor scores 4.2 and the Minolta AF 100/2,8 Macro 1:1
shines at 4.5.
I am not sure what to think of such numbers. I am happy with the
lens: I like the focal length, it performs very well and works
with my Nikon camera.
Autofocus
Even when the focus limiter is engaged (resulting in a limited
focus range from infinity to 0.5 metres, or from 0,314 metres to 0,5),
this lens has a long focussing throw. This allows for extremely
precise macro focussing, but it can cause the AF system of
your camera to hunt. Using a Nikon F100
or a Nikon D1H, I find AF performance perfectly
usuable, except in low light situations where AF sometimes because
quite problematic. I do not regret the fact that this lens does not
have an AF-S ("Silent Wave") focussing motor built in.
I find autofocus useless for macro photography and strongly prefer
manual focussing. That way, you can more easily determine the exact
point of focus and you do not have to worry about the camera locking
on a different part of the subject. Macro photography, almost by definition
I would say, is a nearly endless process of manoeuvering, focussing
and checking depth of field.
Incidentally, you may find this tip regarding the use of the depth
of field button that I found in
John Shaw's "Landscape photography"
useful. Select the maximum aperture on the lens. Then press the DOF button and
slowly close the aperture. By doing it slowly, your eyes can adjust to
the deminishing level of light and you can better judge depth of field.
Accessoires and other lenses
I think the most important accessories for the lens (or macro photography
in general) are:
Tripod. As you approach the 1:3, 1:2 and 1:1 reproduction
ranges, you will find that depth of field becomes increasingly smaller.
It is not uncommon to use f/22 or f/32 to make sure enough of your
subject is acceptably sharp. Using slow film and taking care not to
place your subject in bright sunlight, this means slow shutter speeds.
So, get the biggest, sturdiest tripod that you can. One particularly
useful feature is a center column that can be flipped horizontally:
this should help you manoeuver your camera in position. Read
our article on tripods
for more information.
Polarizing filter. This filter not only removes glare
from large windows or pools of water, it also greatly improves
colour saturation of smaller objects. Even the smallest petal
of a flower can shine quite noticably and a polarizing filter
can dramatically increase contrast and colour saturation. Note
that a polarizer also reduces the amount of light, further increasing
the need to use a tripod.
Cable release. You do not want to ruin your photographs
by having your hands on the camera when you take the picture. You
could do this by using the self timer, but for outdoor macro photography
this is not very practical. If there is any wind, your precious little
flower will swing from one side of the frame to the other and you will
need to wait for a quiet moment. The delay of a self timer, even
if it is only two seconds, can be too much. Instead, use a cable
release.
You may wish to use flash to stop the motion. My attempts at this have
been rather unsuccesfull: harsh lighting as a result of direct, on-camera
flash. Maybe you can do better with a TTL flash cord (SC-17) and a bouncer
or reflector. Alternatively, use a ring-shaped macro flash, such as
Nikon SB-21 or SB-29.
Occasionally, a right angle finder (DR-4) is useful. It allows you to
look into the view finder from above and can prevent you from having
to strain your neck. I have one. It works. It cost $250. It mostly sits
in its box.
If you are interested in building a high quality Nikon system that is
relatively affordable and easy to carry, you should consider the following:
Nikon F80 / N80 body, with the AF 24/2.8
wide-angle lens, the AF 50/1.8 standard lens and the 105/2.8 Micro. They all share the same,
small (i.e., relatively cheap) filter size, are a lot smaller and lighter than the
professional AF-S zooms and easily perform better than the "dickless yuppie" 28-300 zooms.
The entire package can be carried in the smaller shoulder bags and day packs without any
problem.
The two images below illustrate a very simple setup for table-top macro
photography (note that I actually use my DR-4 here!) They show that you
do not need a lot of expensive equipment: a few books, large sheets of
paper or cardboard and some piece of (non-reflective) fabric can be used
to create macro images at home. As you go along, you will discover a lot
more useful accessories: a small brush, a plant mister, pieces of string
etc. Experiment and have a lot of fun (and watch out for lower-back pain!)
If you are looking to buy your first (or next) professional lens that
enables a whole new world to be explored, but one that can also be used
for general photography, the 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor is a very good
choice: it offers sharp optics and excellent handling. If you are serious
about portrait photography, consider some of the alternatives.
I just wanted to mention the manual version of the reviewed lens, the
105mm MF Micro-Nikkor (f/2.8). This lens only goes to 1:2 and needs the extension tube PN-11 (which has a tripod mount) to go to 1:1.
Moreover, I think some of the newer AF-bodies will have trouble metering with the manual lens.
(No problem with my F4 or my girlfriend's F801, but if I remember correctly, the F801 switches from matrix-metering to centered-weighted metering with this lens.)
Now for the good points of the manual lens. The build quality is exceptional. Since the lens only goes down to 1:2 and has a very long focus-throw, precise focussing at not-so-close distances is easy, making it a very good portrait lens (maybe except for bokeh).
The image quality at infinity is also exceptional. Many people rate
this lens among the very best Nikkors at infinity. It is my favorite
landscape lens. Since I am using mainly manual lenses, for me this is the perfect short tele, close-up and protrait lens.
One word about effective aperture: I don't think that the camera body needs to know the effective aperture for correct exposure. If the lens is set at f/5.6 and the effective apterture is (for example) f/8,
then the camera knows that the lens is stopped down two stops (full aperture is f/2.8 marked) and meters the light coming in at full aperture. However, the effective aperture wide open differs from the marked full aperture by the same amount as the set aperture (f/5.6) differs from the effective aperture (f/8) at which we are going to take the picture. Thus, the camera thinks it is metering at f/2.8, but infact, it is metering at f/4. The camera thinks the picture
is taken at f/5.6, but in fact, the picture is taken at f/8.
As it turns out, the loss of light due to makro-extension is one stop when metering and one stop when taking the picture. The two "errors"
cancel out and the picture will be exposed correctly.
What I am saying is that with TTL-metering, exposure-correction for makro-extension is not an issue, even with stupid camera bodies.
This is one of the sharpest Nikkor lenses. Too bad it's not an AFS. It's due for an update. On the D1X or similar model the focusing is fast enough. Lower-end Nikons do not fare so well with this lens in the focusing dept.
For me, the short focus throw in the 5m-infinity range can be a problem, focusing on subjects just under the infinity level can be difficult to get a good focus on for it seems that like one degree of rotation is like on foot in distance or something :)
I too would agree that the build quality is very good, I bought mine a year ago used, with 3-4yrs of use from the previous owner. There is no dust or anything on the inside of the lens and only a few knicks and scratches on the barrel (mostly on the areas where the barrel has a crease in it, by the aperature ring, by the filter ring et cetera). An update with a crinkle-finish and (this is just an idea here, I don't know if this is possible) being able to adjust where the short and long portions of the focus throw are, being able to switch for close and far subjects in the ability for fine focusing.
This is a great lens and I have had great results using it over the years, for example....
http://www.elohi.com/photo/closeup/
Now I am using it on the D100. However, there is an annoying "feature" of this lens, and that is, if you are using manual focus and point the lens downward (for example, in copy work), then the weight of the front element cluster pulls the lens all the way out until it stops.
Judging a macro lens' performance by MTF is totally lame cause these tests are carried out at infinity setting. This lens delivers extraordinary sharpness up close.
Focusing in the macro range is very painful because it changes magnification with focus, you have to set a magnification first and focus by moving camera back and forth, a focusing rail is excellent but cumbersome to carry and set up in the field. Most contemporary macro lenses are like that btw.
To Stefan: The AF-Nikons need the effective aperture for the matrix metering and the 3D-TTL-flash. That's why these features do not work with manual focus lenses.
Many macro subjects (such as plants in backlit sun) can be best metered using an incident meter (since the area of the subject may not be sufficient to fill an in-camera spot meter. This is where the automatic compensation for the bellows factor of the AF Micro-Nikkors together with a body-controlled aperture are a blessing; no correction calculations/tables are needed.
Good points, Georg and Ilkka. I did not know that the newer AF Nikons
need to know the effective aperture for their more advanced metering
modes (for the 3D-TTL flash the camera needs to know the focussing distance, right? This is of course almost the same as to know the effective aperture, except for lenses that change their focal length when focussing, as most Micro-Nikkors probably do.) And I did not think about exernal light meters, where
a camera body displaying the effective aperture obviously comes in handy.
Good review, but I want to add my two cents regarding the MTF numbers. First, as the previous reader cited, the tests are conducted at infiniity. Second, they test one sample. Third, they test only a narrow parameter that in no way indicates what the photographer will actually see on film. Yes, good lenses CAN score high, and poor lenses CAN score low, but there are many, many exceptions. But, too many people want a simple, tell-all number, so they use Photodo ratings as a crutch. Forget Photodo, and trust only what you see on film. The MTF numbers say nothing about color fidelity, distortion, build quality, or handling, all of which can contribute to the final image.
A couple years ago Practical Photography did a macro lens comparison which included detail MTF tests. The top three lenses mountable on Nikon bodies were the Sigma 90mm, the Tamron 90mm, and the Nikon 105mm. The Nikon scored minutely better in the middle apetures however it was beaten at the extremes by the Tamron 90mm.
I own a Tamron 90mm and the company I work for has a Nikon 105mm. Both leses are excellent performers. I am a little partial to the Tamron since it is even sharper than the Nikon at the apetures I use most (the two extremes). Also this lens seems slightly less 'harsh'. I also need my macro lens to do double duty as both a macro and portrait and find the 90mm to be simpler to work with than 105mm. Boiling it down: the Nikon's MTFs are good but not perfect and the ratings mentioned above are likely accurate.
I am not a big fan of the AF 105/2.8 micro-nikkor for my sort of work. In order to reach 1:1, the lens effectively reduces its focal length and hence its working distance. You'll get quite a bit more working distance with the old 105/2.8 micro and the PN-11 tube.
If you don't care about owning a "portrait" lens, the older AI 105 f/4 micro-nikkor is perhaps the best optical performer of them all. They are often available for half the price of the 105/2.8. You could always use the money saved to buy a real portrait lens.
I agree that this is one very sharp lens. However the depth of field is uterly pathetic, regardless of what aperture I use. It has become practically useless. I find that my 80-200 2.8s zoom is often preferred (even though I need to get five feet away!!). Or the 28-70 zoom with a 2.0 teleconverter works even better than the macro. If I need an insect, the 105 is great. If I want flowers, forget it. Even the Tamron 28-200, long retired now, is actually better for flora. Too bad. I love Nikon and every other lens that I have purchased.
Judging a macro lens' performance by MTF is totally lame cause
these tests are carried out at infinity setting. This lens delivers
extraordinary sharpness up close.
If you are referring to photodo, I believe that they do their MTF
testing at 1:10 for all lenses. Other MTFs, such as those done by
the manufacturer in evaluating a lens they design, surely are done at
a wide range of focusing distances.
If you look at the Nikon macro lenses, a few points can
be made:
1. Most of them use floating elements to ensure very good optical performance
throughout the focusing range (the 55/3.5 may be the lone exception).
2. Some are better at infinity (55/2.8 AIS/AF, 105/2.8 AIS) than they
are in the macro range, and some are better in the macro range than they
are at infinity (55/3.5 AI, 60/2.8 AF, 105/2.8 AF). The 55/3.5 near infinity and the 60/2.8 near
infinity are probably the only instances where you need to worry about
getting less than a professionally acceptable image quality.
3. Having the camera tell you the effective aperture is useful for depth of
field calculations and also for metering with a handheld meter, such
as an incident meter or 1 degree spotmeter.
If you are referring to photodo, I believe that they do their MTF testing at 1:10 for all lenses. Other MTFs, such as those done by the manufacturer in evaluating a lens they design, surely are done at a wide range of focusing distances
Photodo is referred obviously, cause it is the source author mentions in his review and they DO test lenses only at infinity if you go and read their site. Nikon's own MTFs are here, they look like to be carried at infinity too(at least one fixed distance), unfortunately MTF of 105 micro is not published. It is likely that they are computer simulations rather than actual tests (like Canon does in their Lenswork). Japanese anyone?
I have one of these lenses here at work, along with an SB-21 and N90s. One of the things about this setup that I find quite remarkable is how easy to use it is. I've been using various types of macro gear for 25 years, so I'm well aware of the complexities of extension factors, narrow DOF, and camera shake associated with high magnification. I find I can hand this rig to engineers / techs who have minimal photo experience and they can produce decent shots right out of the gate. The seamless way this rig goes down to 1:1, coupled with a very easy to use ringlight make this a joy to use handheld.
One other oddity: the ringlights come with two filter rings, one for 52mm and one for 62mm. The body of the 105mm can accept the 62mm, and in fact it's recommended you use it this way. This keeps the flash weight off of the moving portion of the lens.
As for the comment about the lens (or viewfinder) getting "Misty" in the review, are you sure your breath wasn't fogging up the viewfinder? If you point a camera straight up, the viewfinder goes horizontal and collects more breath vapor.
Just a thought, because that happens to me too sometimes.
For those of you who would prefer a lenshood, especially for field shooting at intermediate distances to infinity or tricky backlighting, the old metal snap on hood for the Nikon 105 f2.5 MF or the shorter snap on metal hood for the Nikon 85 f2.0 MF work perfectly. I have used these combinations for years, with and without filters, and had no troubles.
I recently concluded that over the past two-and-a-half years, my scanner has slowly been accumulating dust and the result is that the quality of my scans is not as good as it used to be. I'm afraid it has also affected the image quality of the scans in this review.
I plan to clean my scanner of have it cleaned and also to redo some older scans. The lens does indeed take better pictures than my scans show (although relatively small JPEG files can never be good judgement material).
It has been a lot of debate about the quality of this lens against Tamron 90mm and Canon 105mm. The most recent one shows that Tamron in a lot of aspects can beat Canon, especially in terms of price. Unfortunately it said that our Nikon came third behind these two lenses. I own Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 non D, but when I combine it with Velbon slider, you cannot complain about anything. This lens is just a marvel of Nikon. The speed is sure soooo slow but why do we need AF-S for Micro Nikkor? You are going to turn off the AF anyway. From the review and comments, I did not see any comment about the use of horizontal slider. I really don't get it. It IS a very nice piece of invention for us to do macro photography IMO. ++++ FNU Brawijaya
Hhello My name is Jewell BunchIII and I am searching for a good micro lens to shoot micro photography how does the nikon 105 compare to the tamron 90,tamron 180,and the finally the nikon 60mm lens is this lens better than the other why or not
The newest version of this lens is Nikon 105mm f/2.8 G VR AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens
As you can see, the current information shows that this review is outdated. This lens does have AF-S, and VR (Vibration Reduction). It is popular enough to be hard to locate on some days. The current price is in the $940 +- $15 range.
Thies is what they say about the newest of this lens. Note that they address most of the negatives of htis review.
The AF-S VR 105 f/2.8G IF-ED brings the benefits of vibration reduction (VR) to the domain of Macro photography. It offers high-resolution, high-optical performance for both digital and 35mm film format SLR cameras. This lens incorporates Nikon's second-generation vibration reduction system (VR II) that allows flexible hand-held shooting by stabilizing the image to the equivalent stability of a shutter speed that is 4 stops faster when compared with a conventional lens. The SWM (Silent Wave Motor) and IF (Internal Focusing) ensure quiet autofocusing with quick and convenient switching between autofocus and manual operation. Optical performance is enhanced by an ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass element that minimizes chromatic aberration, and Nano Crystal Coat which drastically reduces flare, enabling finely defined, clear images
I've got the newer or newest version of the AF-S MICRO NIKKOR 105MM 2.8G ED VR. It's also an "N". I think this lens was $975.00 and worth every penny of it. The only thing I find odd about it is NIKON'S use of the word "MICRO" while the rest of the world uses "MACRO". The lens is quite heavy, but so is the camera, but I could describe the lens in one word -"SUPERB". I wouldn't trade the earlier versions if I had one, but I would never part with this lens. ... Joe Prete
