Topic: Close-ups (Read 5290 times)

Rob C · « **on:** November 16, 2009, 11:52:48 am »

I am interested in finding some micro lens that, without resorting to rings or even extra supplementary lenses up front, will record areas of around 70mm x 50mm. The closest I find is the Zeiss 2/100 which apparently covers 72mm x 48mm unassisted. Unfortunately, it is more expensive than I am willing to pay for the use I have in mind.

Does anyone know of a Nikkor alternative that covers down to this small area unaided? I do want to stay around 100mm focal length if only to allow lighting of a sort without clunking into the lens! And I do need sharp!

Also, I am meaning on full-frame format, not the cropped version.

Any advice or user experiences would be appreciated.

Rob C

cyberean · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2009, 04:16:42 pm »

take a look at a 105 mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor

no first-hand experience, but the lens has
a solid reputation from those in the know

kers · « **Reply #2 on:** November 16, 2009, 05:44:10 pm »

Every macrolens will do...

it seems the new 60mm 2,8 micro from Nikon is very good... but did not try it- it is not expensive it goes to 1:1 and has autofocus
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012908nikkor60micro.asp

Very much like the nanocoating that Nikon uses nowadays. The new lenses are also designed to easy focus manually.

The 100 mm macro from Zeiss is optically about the best there is.. so expensive- but good lenses stay good forever- especially metal ones

I very much like the 85mm PCE ( that one I have) - tilt and shift can be very useful also with macro- it has no distortion at all- but expensive
-

Rob C · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2009, 04:36:55 am »

Thank you for your replies, guys, and I think it seems that Zeiss gets the thumbs up! However, as I mentioned in the original post, it's too expensive for the purpose I want such a lens for and the next best, price-wise, looks like the Nikkor 105mm micro.

I have John Shaw's Closeups in Nature and he gives very good information about the genre, but as the book was written prior to the advent of digital becoming the norm, much has change since. For instance, I think the Nikkor 105mm micro is now available as af as well as manual, the manual being quite a bit more expensive; does this reflect quality, I wonder, or just marketing? In his book, Shaw prints quite a few shots from the 180mm lens and they are stunning; I do have a 180mm Nikkor but, unlike his manual one, it is af and neither does it focus unaided as closely as I need. There are also restrictions on the type of extension rings one can use with it etc. etc.

Thanks again for your time.

Rob C

Jeremy Payne · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2009, 08:11:49 am »

Rob ... I'm pretty sure the 105VR can magnify to 1:1 (or even just a hair past) and the still-offered Manual 105mm can only go to 1:2.

Rob C · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2009, 02:07:30 pm »

Quote from: Jeremy Payne

Rob ... I'm pretty sure the 105VR can magnify to 1:1 (or even just a hair past) and the still-offered Manual 105mm can only go to 1:2.

Hi Jeremy

Yes, I found some info. on the Thom site about the VR version and his conclusion was that though it is very crisp in the centre, the corners aren't as good as the older D or manual versions of the 105mm appear to be. Also, his feeling was that VR is more of a problem than a help at high magnifications - which seems sensible to me too. (This would be tripod mounted for my uses.)

I am currently investigating the older D version of the AF and may go for that. As I have just started to have an interest in c/up as an adjunct to my 'painting' series (love the use of 'series' - only managed about six or so keepers so far!) I will probably try to get something that's half the price of new. If it works, fine; if not, then not such a great loss.

Thanks -

Rob C

Jeremy Payne · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2009, 02:10:06 pm »

Quote from: Rob C

Also, his feeling was that VR is more of a problem than a help at high magnifications

Yes - the VR makes for great portrait shooting in ambient light, but the VR does NOTHING at 1:1 and degrades to that point as you get closer and closer.

cyberean · « **Reply #7 on:** November 17, 2009, 03:00:41 pm »

take a look here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html
he's one of the well-reputed "in-the-know" folks, who shares some thoughts on
the various versions of the 105 micro lens (... as well as most other Nikkors).
also, feel free to message him. he's fairly open and responsive to such inquiries.

given your stated parameters, the lens i referenced earlier would seem to be the best fit.

JeffKohn · « **Reply #8 on:** November 17, 2009, 04:02:36 pm »

Telephoto macro lenses seem to be pretty easy to design, because just about every lens maker has some really good macro lenses. The Zeiss is about as good as it gets, but for something more affordable my recommendation would be the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro.

Conner999 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2009, 07:59:03 am »

Mamiya M645 120/4 A Macro with M645-Nikon adapter. I use on one my 1Ds2 (after years of using Leica APO and other glass on same) and this sucker is amazing. Manual aperture version - $500 ish.
Other candidate would be the Hassy 120/4.

SeanBK · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2009, 11:28:36 am »

I have Nikon 105 @ f2.8 VR & is a terrific lens. Thumbs up. It is what it's hype says it is. Very Happy With It.

Stephane Desnault · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2009, 11:55:40 am »

The Sigma 150mm macro is well rated too, and less expensive than the Nikon - it's a favorite of many macro nature shooters as 150mm gives you a bit more working distance than the 105mm nikkors.

full frame review at:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/180/cat/all

best,

Stephane

Rob C · « **Reply #12 on:** November 19, 2009, 04:06:52 am »

Hi everyone who contributed!

I have taken the plunge and ordered a 2.8/105 Micro Nikkor AIS manual lens. I am advised the focussing range isn't exactly what I had wanted but that I can surpass 1.1 by going the PK 11 extension ring route.

I haven't bought used since the laste 50s - I hope I don't regret this. But, since even a brand new Nikkor 24-70mm wasn't good at the wide end, I suppose I just have to hope for the best!

Thanks again.

Rob C

Rob C · « **Reply #13 on:** November 30, 2009, 11:55:44 am »

Well, the 105mm arrived today and looks perfect; hope it works out as well as it looks!

Rob C

Slough · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2009, 04:42:33 pm »

Quote from: Rob C

I am interested in finding some micro lens that, without resorting to rings or even extra supplementary lenses up front, will record areas of around 70mm x 50mm. The closest I find is the Zeiss 2/100 which apparently covers 72mm x 48mm unassisted. Unfortunately, it is more expensive than I am willing to pay for the use I have in mind.

Does anyone know of a Nikkor alternative that covers down to this small area unaided? I do want to stay around 100mm focal length if only to allow lighting of a sort without clunking into the lens! And I do need sharp!

Also, I am meaning on full-frame format, not the cropped version.

Any advice or user experiences would be appreciated.

Rob C

I assume you refer to the subject area, rather than the image circle. If so, that is approximately 1:2 (half lifesize), and all Nikon micro lenses go to at least half lifesize. Rorsletts tests are reliable. Also check out www.NikonLinks.com for other opinions.

At the risk of saying the bleedin' obvious, resolution will vary with aperture, and below F11 is best avoided on many lenses, though sometimes F16 is acceptable depending on need.

[Edited to correct smelling pisstakes.)

Rob C · « **Reply #15 on:** December 02, 2009, 03:05:26 pm »

Quote from: Slough

I assume you refer to the subject area, rather than the image circle. If so, that is approximately 1:2 (half lifesize), and all Nikon micro lenses go to at least half lifesize. Rorsletts tests are reliable. Also check out www.NikonLinks.com for other opinions.

At the risk of saying the bleedin' obvious, resolution will vary with aperture, and below F11 is best avoided on many lenses, though sometimes F16 is acceptable depending on need.

[Edited to correct smelling pisstakes.)

Just taken a look at your pics: if mine work out as crisply with the 105mm I shall be more than happy!

Rob C

Author Topic: Close-ups (Read 5290 times)

Jeremy Payne

Jeremy Payne

Slough