New Micro Nikkor Lens....some advice, please

Ratatoskr

There is switch on 105 that limits the focus range. If it set to "full", it will be slow for portraiture
for macro work I have not found anything faster

There is? You don't say? :-))

For macro stuff it works great but I have a half a dozen lenses that focus faster than it does in low light. I was referring to the OP shooting in lower light like he was wanting to use something for.

Macro lenses are never fast focusing, it's just not the nature of a macro, and besides, a macro (for it's purpose) is mostly focused with your body and not with a ring or AF.

Ratatoskr

@ adamz...yes the updated chart shows on the D4 the 105mm f/2.8 works with some limitations.

But, I am really interested in the Sigma as the new 150mm w/image stabilization soudded nds interesting...

I do recall on the old forum a reference to some excellent images done with a lens reversing ring. And, I tried this as well with a Lumiquest box on an SB800, 50mm f/1.4D. Actually works well in image quality, but the dim viewing suggested I might want something all in one and ready to go.

I don't think OS/VR works at macro 1:1 distances. I am sure The 105 VR does not work at Macro distances so I cant see that the Sigma 150 OS would work.
I have the old 150 macro and have been thinking of upgrading to the OS version .. since I use the 150 as a general tele lens a lot the OS would sure help a lot .. I cant really hand hold the 150 for long at the stability I need at 150mm.

The OS of the Sigma macro's works great. I can't specifically say how well in exact 1:1 shooting vs other distances but it's a great added feature when I do my nature macro photography. I only hand hold my Sigma 150mm OS lens with R1C1 and battery pack on my D800E and have no problems with getting tired. I use the OS function almost always, at 1:1 and all other distances. The AF is of course slow but as I said macros are almost always focused with body movement. Few cases I use a tripod I use the LV focusing a lot.

There is always the slow adopter to new technical features and when I was researching 500mm lenses I heard more than a few saying that AF is not necessary on those lenses. Glad I didn't listen to them. I hear a lot the last few years that VR/OS is not an unimportant to macro photography. Glad I didn't listened to them either.

sevencrossing

duplicate deleted

TaoTeJared

@msmoto - it work very well (AF) with TC-14, TC-17, TC-20vII (in good light on d300s, haven't tested this combo on d800 as I don't have this TC anymore) so I assume the new TC-20vIII will also work w/o any problems, and this are real life data

I just slapped my 1.7TC on the 105vr and it works just like it did on my D300. 100% function - no limitations, near, far, quick, fast, locks, hand held it to 1/13 on a subject 6" away - VR works as it should.

The lists that have been posted are for the NON AFS VR version. I doubt the AFD version works and you would have to use one of the much older TCs for it. F-stop reads f/5 with the TC 1.7 on it.

TaoTeJared

I don't think OS/VR works at macro 1:1 distances. I am sure The 105 VR does not work at Macro distances so I cant see that the Sigma 150 OS would work.

That is wrong - it works very well. The VR has no clue at what distance you are to the subject, it only "feels" movement and compensates for it.

Now when you are shooting at 1:1 your good technique (which we always practice you would be using a tripod and VR wouldn't add anything.

spraynpray

"it only "feels" movement and compensates for it. "

Interesting - I just realised I don't know how VR works - I had assumed one of the elements used a dithering action to determine best focus - possibly with some predictive algorithms.

How does it work?

TaoTeJared

Interesting - I just realised I don't know how VR works - I had assumed one of the elements used a dithering action to determine best focus - possibly with some predictive algorithms.

How does it work?

Nope - not a "smart" lens. Basically it is a Gyro Stabilizer or simpler form multiple gyroscopes. Nikon has a good write up on it that I read once.

GhostRider117

I don't think OS/VR works at macro 1:1 distances. I am sure The 105 VR does not work at Macro distances so I cant see that the Sigma 150 OS would work.
I have the old 150 macro and have been thinking of upgrading to the OS version .. since I use the 150 as a general tele lens a lot the OS would sure help a lot .. I cant really hand hold the 150 for long at the stability I need at 150mm.

Well, actually, the VR works, but the closer you get to min focus distance, the less effective it becomes. I find it to be basically useless at magnifications of 1:3 - 1:4, though it's difficult to assess and is gradual.

Back on topic, somebody said earlier that the 105mm f/2.8G was a fantastic lens, and that you should get it and never look back. Amen to that...

However...

It is a fantastic macro lens, and imho long enough if you're shooting DX. With FX, though, you might consider the Sigma 150mm (or 180mm, but it's quite heavier and bulkier, not to mention more expensive). My father got the 150mm last month, I haven't used it yet, but on the D800 it seemed to perform very well, even if not as good as the 105mm. I never tried the Nikkor 200mm macro, I hear it's even better than the 105mm, though you'll lose fast AF, VR (not a great loss, imho), relative compacity and lightness, and... a lot of cash. Other Micro Nikkors? Well, they're far from the same standards, but they are way cheaper too... Not the pro build quality, and I guess slower AF. Plus, they're short (too short imho, but that depends on what you shoot).

I own the 105mm, I use it for insects (mainly), and on a DX body, it is a fantastic lens, optically. On FX, I think I would find it too short and would prefer the 150mm.
AF is a non-issue, use Manual in macro work.
VR is nice, but useless for macro work, so whatever the lens you buy, you'll be better off with a tripod (or you're steady as a rock handheld... I don't buy it, or you're shooting at magnifications of 1:3~1:4, not 1:2~1:1...)

As a regular tele, well... Yes, you can use it, but keep in mind that you're losing 1 and a third stop to a 85mm f/1.8G, and that the 105mm is actually 2.8 only at longer focus distances. Use it a bit close (though stil very very far from macro range), the max aperture will start to close down to 3, 3.2 quite quickly... and now you're almost 2 stops behind the 85mm (ok, closer to one and two-thirds)... But, yes, it will be an optically awesome 105mm, with VR, and a very very fast AF (well... when range-limited), though that doesn't mean it'll be appropriate for all uses. I'd rather have a 85mm 1.8 (or 1.4, but that's a tad more expensive) in low light, based on specs only (don't know about optical quality and AF for that lens, so, as I said: based on specs). Plus, in really low light, that extra stop (and a third) the f/1.8 has will give you a more reliable AF.

So, to wrap-up: it is a macro lens, and assuming it's long enough for you (whatever your camera, I wouldn't go shorter), I wouldn't hesitate one second. It can be used as a telephoto, but you might find that it has drawbacks compared to a 85mm f/1.8. Up to you to check your priorities.

Edit: should you work at magnifications of 1:1.5 to 1:2, you might consider shorter (cheaper but could be sufficient), or for uses such as objects etc. It's less comfortable in my opinion, especially if you need to light the "scene", but it's cheaper.

GhostRider117

I don't think OS/VR works at macro 1:1 distances. I am sure The 105 VR does not work at Macro distances so I cant see that the Sigma 150 OS would work.

That is wrong - it works very well. The VR has no clue at what distance you are to the subject, it only "feels" movement and compensates for it.

Now when you are shooting at 1:1 your good technique (which we always practice you would be using a tripod and VR wouldn't add anything.

Sorry, wrong... VR is ON, but loses effectiveness the closer you are to min focus distance.

Edit: to quote Nikon itself: The VRII function minimizes camera shake by offering the equivalent of a shutter speed 4 stops faster at near infinity to 3m (1/30x reproduction ratio) shooting.

and again in the owner's manual: As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x, the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease.

So, closer than 3 meters (1:30), it starts to be less effective, and basically useless, in my opinion around 1:4 (though I guess with better technique than mine, you might find it still slightly effective down to 1:3...)

Meinrad

It helps to understand what VR does. VR senses angular movements and compensates these angular movements by moving a Cook Triplet element in the lens out of axis to restore the angular relationship. VR does not compensate for bopping up and down or moving sideways, while we keep the lens pointing perfectly in the previous direction. A quick example will illustrate this: A 105mm lens in an FX camera fills the sensor with an object that is 4m wide at a distance of 10m. If we only change the angle of the lens by 0.1 degree, we already move the image on the sensor by 20 pixels. If we bopp up or down (we may have weak knees!) by 1mm, we shift the image by 1 pixel. Therefore, at a distance, VR only makes sense to correct for angular movements. When we do 1:1 macro, though, the up/down movement of 1mm translates 1:1 to the sensor. 1mm (out of 36) really means that we shift the image on the sensor by more than 100 pixels. While the angular compensation still works when we do macro, the uncompensated lateral movement now creates all the bluring.
I could only find an animation on a French language website. But pictures 12 through 15 of this link need no words to understand how VR works (use mouse roll-over to animate). The animation is just perfect (like all of what Pierre Toscani writes). http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_300vr.html

adamz

@JJ_SO - yes with AF, though it may not get good results in darker places.

Msmoto

At the present time, the new Sigma lenses are looking very good. And with such a large selection, new ones being announced...2013 is going to be a good year.

Golf007sd

I can tell you for a matter of fact that the 105 2.8 VR II in conjunction with the 1.7 teleconverter work just fine in AF. It's performance in the dark is quite amazing as well. I would agree that for any type of real Macro, hence, 1:1, I would turn VR off, given that I would be using a tripod. One can try to shoot hand-held if your hands is steady enough and can hold your breath for a good amount of time. I for one use a tripod in order to reduce the number of wasted clicks.

Here is a shot I just took of my favorite test subject in the dark mind you.

D4 105 2.8 Micro /w 1.7 teleconverter 1/40 ISO 12,800 + 2EV @ f/8.0

TaoTeJared

I don't think OS/VR works at macro 1:1 distances. I am sure The 105 VR does not work at Macro distances so I cant see that the Sigma 150 OS would work.

That is wrong - it works very well. The VR has no clue at what distance you are to the subject, it only "feels" movement and compensates for it.

Now when you are shooting at 1:1 your good technique (which we always practice you would be using a tripod and VR wouldn't add anything.

Sorry, wrong... VR is ON, but loses effectiveness the closer you are to min focus distance.

Edit: to quote Nikon itself: The VRII function minimizes camera shake by offering the equivalent of a shutter speed 4 stops faster at near infinity to 3m (1/30x reproduction ratio) shooting.

and again in the owner's manual: As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x, the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease.

So, closer than 3 meters (1:30), it starts to be less effective, and basically useless, in my opinion around 1:4 (though I guess with better technique than mine, you might find it still slightly effective down to 1:3...)

No I am correct - it always works no matter how close.

You are speaking to it's "maximum effectiveness to be expected" which is VERY different. You may have noted my "tongue in cheek" note about using a tripod.

GhostRider117

No I am correct - it always works no matter how close.

You are speaking to it's "maximum effectiveness to be expected" which is VERY different. You may have noted my "tongue in cheek" note about using a tripod.

Sure... it is non-0, it's effectiveness would decrease asymptotically.
So, there comes a magnification where it is so ineffective that it doesn't help, even with the best technique ever.

I stand my ground, in real life, in does not "work very well". Talk to Nikon about it if you want, mate. Anyway, I know what I'm saying and I won't argue on that anymore.

And yes, I noted. We agree on tripods. Though I seem to understand that we both would rather have a good enough technique not to need one

EDIT: funny, you mentionned Thom Hogan's website in another post, I just read his review of the 105mm he does too note that the VR is basically useless at close range (though he says closer than 1:3, I can't match that).

Havoc

The body I'm using is the D800 and I'll start looking at the Sigma lenses. You guys are a wealth of information and I want to thank everyone for all your input and I'll be looking to buy my next lens in the coming months.

Tradewind35

I have the manual 105 Micro Nikkor and the 55 -wonderful mechanical marvels - I used them for product photography and for me autofocus in macro work is nonsensical - surely you preview exactly the depth of field you want and manually focus on the bit you want sharp. I have no knowledge of what an autofocus macro would have added for me but lots of people on this thread clearty do know about that. All I can usefully contribute is my experience with a Sigma 90 macro. I accidentally dropped it gently from 12 inches on carpet when the tripod mount slipped. - result broken lens - how feeble. I then changed to the Micro Nikkors and they are far superior in build quality and image quality - to the extent that I would never put anything other than a Nikkor on my cameras thereafter.
Robin

David

I just purchased a used Nikon 105 Micro VR yesterday, and when I got home and placed the lens on my body - I noticed that sometimes I cannot open up the aperture all the way. At times it would only go to f/3, sometimes f/4, and then another time I got the lens to open fully to f/2.8. Odd. Any reasonable explaination? I currently am using a D3200

Msmoto

Try the lens on another body...if it exhibits the same problem, this would suggest it is in the lens. Also, try the lens and make certain it functions properly at all settings in camera...A, S, M, P and that the exposures are consistent.

If there are problems in exposure consistency, another suggestion a potential problem with the lens.

sevencrossing

Nothing to worry about, its is normal
As you focus closer the effective aperture is reduced
and the auto exposure on the camera automatically compensates
it does it on mine too

David

Thanks, Msmoto - will do. Update coming later...

David

Thanks SevenCrossing - nice to know there is at least one other out there that experiences this. I will give it a go on my other body and see how things go.

MikeGunter

Hi,

I think your lens is fine. Nikon lenses change the effective aperture when wide open and focused close up. Your other lenses (if they are Nikon lenses and they have micro focusing) will likely show the same thing at wide open.

The actual aperture at more distance should be the correct lens rated f-stop.

My best,

Mike

JJ_SO

David, that's normal behavior of every Micro Nikkor G lens. When focused very closely, the aperture goes down a bit because the focal length physically increases, although this lens stays the same length because of it's internal focusing.

The diameter of the front lens stays the same. 105mm focal length is, when you focus to infinity. 105/2.8 ("divided by") is 37.5mm. Take a ruler and try. It's actually a bit more like 43mm, that has optical reasons I can't explain. Now, when you focus to shortest possible distance, it goes down to f/4.8. The reason is - simplified - a "normal lens" would be focused by moving the front lens away from the camera - which means, longer focal length. But the diameter of the front lens doesn't change. So, in theory this lens has 180mm focal length at closest distance because 37.5mm × 4.8 = 180mm. Maybe it's more or less, but the explanation is, a longer focal length decreases the basic aperture.

By the way, at the same time the smallest aperture at infintiy is f/32. At closest distance it's f/54!

Now, why is Nikon giving so weird aperture numbers? Why aren't the y do it with each lens? In macro distances flashes are used that don't always allow TTL-metering. To calculate exposure by flash guide numbers, a correct aperture number is required. Second reason might be to calculate depth of field.

David

Mike -

This is my first experience with any macro lens. All of my other Nikkor lenses fully open at all times.

I went outside to take some portraits of my fiance, at approximately 30 feet away - and was able to open to f/2.8

Since this is normal, I will not worry myself - since I will likely stop the aperture down quite a bit when shooting up close.