Anyone care to stress test it on some shiny metal pieces for LoCA? Many Z lenses have been extremely well corrected--the 2.8 zooms could credibly be called apochromatic--so I have high expectations.
Did anyone else's come with a hat, or do I have my shop to thank for that?
Initial impressions are that I'm very happy about the light weight, even if I wish they had kept it a little more compact. It's insanely sharp. Focus is relatively slow, which is to be expected on a macro lens, but accurate. I wish the "display" came on while the meter was active because I sometimes glance at my lens to look at focus distance if I'm anticipating something. Less of an issue with macro, I guess.
I can do some shiny object shots today at some point.
Also as a side note, this is my first lens with the customizable ring, and I have to say, I don't see a good workflow for it unless every lens you own has it. It might just be me, but my muscle memory isn't going to reach for that ring if I spend every other moment with my camera using the dials on the body.
This has always been my nit with macro lens comparisons, like the 55's to the 105's once the 105's no longer required tubes. Contemporary 105 macro's tend to achieve 1:1 by reducing focal length for a given maximum lens extension (via a zoom down lens group), while the 50's get there by simple lens extension which in turn increases net focal length -- and thus at 1:1 they end up being very nearly the same net operating focals, or in some cases the 50 can end up as net *longer* than the 100...
johnvanatta wrote:
Anyone care to stress test it on some shiny metal pieces for LoCA? Many Z lenses have been extremely well corrected--the 2.8 zooms could credibly be called apochromatic--so I have high expectations.
Been in meetings all day, but while one of my more long-winded coworkers was blathering, I stepped out and snapped a few shots of bright objects in sunlight. All wide-open, and uncorrected. Just cropped to show the most relevant areas. Hope that helps:
The first thing that struck me is this lens is oddly light for its size. Don't even notice it is mounted to the camera. Also didn't it before but some of the letters fell off the dodo
gear-nut wrote:
This has always been my nit with macro lens comparisons, like the 55's to the 105's once the 105's no longer required tubes. Contemporary 105 macro's tend to achieve 1:1 by reducing focal length for a given maximum lens extension (via a zoom down lens group), while the 50's get there by simple lens extension which in turn increases net focal length -- and thus at 1:1 they end up being very nearly the same net operating focals, or in some cases the 50 can end up as net *longer* than the 100...
So there is a trade-off in using lenses that require a tube to get to 1:1 versus a lens designed to achieve 1:1 with an internal focus design. While you are increasing apparent focal length with a tube, what you're actually doing is pushing the exit pupil further from the image plane, which increases the diameter of the image circle but decreases the transmission and the overall resolution available to the image plane. So a lens like the AIS 55/2.8 or ZF 50/2 or Leica 60/2.8 that's optimized for 1:2 will appear to be longer lenses on their respective 1:1 tubes, but you will lose the optimal performance they have at 1:2.
Compromise designs like the Z 50/2.8, AF-D 60/2.8, Minolta 50/2.8, or Voigtlander 110/2.5 that achieve 1:1 with a mixture of pushing the front elements forward during focusing but rely on complicated floating element groups to maintain quality breathe in the opposite direction, becoming shorter apparent focal lengths, but they tend not to lose as much as fully internal designs (particularly the Minolta, since it's closer to a 55mm at infinity). Their quality tends to max out at 1:2, but at 1:1, they're still far and away better than most lenses on tubes, which is especially true of the Voigtlander, as it benefits from modern glass and coatings.
Fully internal focus lenses like the AF-S 60, Z 105 S, Sigma DG DN 105, and Irix 150/2.8, lose the most apparent focal length to breathing, but also have the highest quality throughout their focusing ranges. They're also longer and bulkier to pack, have greater issues with optical vignetting (cats eye bokeh in the corners), and tend to have the shortest working distances (end of lens to subject) making lighting that much more difficult. Still, if you want the ultimate quality from infinity to 1:1, there's no question this is the group for you.
Been in meetings all day, but while one of my more long-winded coworkers was blathering, I stepped out and snapped a few shots of bright objects in sunlight. All wide-open, and uncorrected. Just cropped to show the most relevant areas. Hope that helps:
Thanks for taking these, that's very helpful. It looks as good as I hoped, just like the CV110.
The 72.5 mm FL value is obtained dividing by four the MFD (minimum focussing distance):
290/4 = 72.5 mm.
However, that formula holds for thin lenses only in that it does not take into account the internodal distance (i.e. the distance between nodal planes in thick lenses and in multi-element lenses as well).
The exact formula is:
D = F(1+1/R) + InD + F(1+R)
where F is the focal length, R the reproduction ratio (magnification), D the focus distance and InD the internodal distance. If we set R = 1 (1:1), then we get
D = 4F + InD and F = (D+InD)/4.
If we don't know the InD value at MFD (1:1), we can't calculate the exact FL.
If we "assume" D >> InD modulus, then F ≈ D/4.
In this excellent webpage by Pierre Toscani we find several different strategies adopted by manufacturers, and by Nikon in particular, to design macro lenses.
More in detail, Pierre Toscani has calculated exactly the FL variation of several Micro-Nikkor lenses when focused from infinity to MFD.
Briefly:
AF 55/2.8 FL @ 1:1 = 59 mm (AF 55/2.8 has the same optical design as AI-S 55/2.8 but can go to 1:1 without extension tubes);
AF 60/2.8 FL @ 1:1 = 49.4 mm;
AF 105/2.8 FL @ 1:1 = 73.7 mm;
AF-S 105/2.8 VR FL @ 1:1 = 75.7 mm.
If we divide by 4 the MFD of the Micro-Nikkors quoted above we get similar, but different, FL guess values at 1:1 (57 mm, 54.7, 78.5 and 77.6 mm respectively). The exact MFD values are in the link above.
He calculated the behaviour of the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50/2 Macro too. He got a FL of 53.1 mm @ 1:1 (FL @ 1:1 increases similarly to the Micro-Nikkor AF 55/2.8; both use extension only to reach 1:1).
Quite disappointing is the huge reduction of FL of the 70-180 Micro-Nikkor at the long end: from 174.6 mm (at infinity) to 71.2 mm at MFD (1:1.33) - link
mach250 wrote:
Noticed I had something a bit more interesting on my desk.
If these too are wide-open, LoCA seems quite well corrected.
Ripolini wrote:
The 72.5 mm FL value is obtained dividing by four the MFD (minimum focussing distance):
290/4 = 72.5 mm.
However, that formula holds for thin lenses only in that it does not take into account the internodal distance (i.e. the distance between nodal planes in thick lenses and in multi-element lenses as well).
The exact formula is:
D = F(1+1/R) + InD + F(1+R)
where F is the focal length, R the reproduction ratio (magnification), D the focus distance and InD the internodal distance. If we set R = 1 (1:1), then we get
D = 4F + InD and F = (D+InD)/4.
If we don't know the InD value at MFD (1:1), we can't calculate the exact FL.
If we "assume" D >> InD modulus, then F ≈ D/4.
In this excellent webpage by Pierre Toscani we find several different strategies adopted by manufacturers, and by Nikon in particular, to design macro lenses.
More in detail, Pierre Toscani has calculated exactly the FL variation of several Micro-Nikkor lenses when focused from infinity to MFD.
Briefly:
AF 55/2.8 FL @ 1:1 = 59 mm (AF 55/2.8 has the same optical design as AI-S 55/2.8 but can go to 1:1 without extension tubes);
AF 60/2.8 FL @ 1:1 = 49.4 mm;
AF 105/2.8 FL @ 1:1 = 73.7 mm;
AF-S 105/2.8 VR FL @ 1:1 = 75.7 mm.
If we divide by 4 the MFD of the Micro-Nikkors quoted above we get similar, but different, FL guess values at 1:1 (57 mm, 54.7, 78.5 and 77.6 mm respectively). The exact MFD values are in the link above.
He calculated the behaviour of the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50/2 Macro too. He got a FL of 53.1 mm @ 1:1 (FL @ 1:1 increases similarly to the Micro-Nikkor AF 55/2.8; both use extension only to reach 1:1).
Quite disappointing is the huge reduction of FL of the 70-180 Micro-Nikkor at the long end: from 174.6 mm (at infinity) to 71.2 mm at MFD (1:1.33) - link ...Show more →
True, but the variance is rarely greater than + or - 4mm. I should have said roughly 72.5, but it's probably as close as we'll get.
Hmmm... I wonder in other countries if Nikon is shipping lots of 105/2.8 macro.
Over here it is going to be back ordered for a long time it seems. First shipment for the whole country was 4 which Nikon made them all demo lenses. Next shipment is coming in next week, we will get a whopping 8 units for the whole country supposedly. Luckily, as far as I know, one of eight is supposed to be mine.
Consider the lens is made 76 km away from my condo, this is really sad
Ripolini wrote:
If these too are wide-open, LoCA seems quite well corrected.
First one is at f/5.6 and second is at f/3.3. Can't recall what the aperture is at MFD or if I was at 1:1 for the photo.
suteetat wrote:
Hmmm... I wonder in other countries if Nikon is shipping lots of 105/2.8 macro.
Over here it is going to be back ordered for a long time it seems. First shipment for the whole country was 4 which Nikon made them all demo lenses. Next shipment is coming in next week, we will get a whopping 8 units for the whole country supposedly. Luckily, as far as I know, one of eight is supposed to be mine.
Consider the lens is made 76 km away from my condo, this is really sad
You think they would keep a decent amount local. Wonder if there were only 8 pre-orders and they limited it to them until inventory shortages get filled.
mach250 wrote:
You think they would keep a decent amount local. Wonder if there were only 8 pre-orders and they limited it to them until inventory shortages get filled.
Nikon is getting some kind of governmental tax break by setting up factory here but everything that was made has to be shipped back to Japan. Thailand is getting its allocation via Nikon Singapore so yes, we make them but we don't get them first.
There are definitely more than 8 pre orders and the 8 are only going to two stores, one specialized Nikon shop and one on the higher end, more professional oriented chains while many other shops will have to wait longer before they will get any in stock.
freaklikeme wrote:
True, but the variance is rarely greater than + or - 4mm. I should have said roughly 72.5, but it's probably as close as we'll get.
The true FL at 1:1 is lower than AF/AF-S 105's, i.e. < 74 mm (due to the shorter MFD of the 105 MC). What's more important to me is the working distance, which I expect to be a couple of cm shorter that 105 VR's at 1:1. I guess it's around 13 cm.
Probably Lance could measure and share the WD value at MFD.
Ripolini wrote:
The true FL at 1:1 is lower than AF/AF-S 105's, i.e. < 74 mm (due to the shorter MFD of the 105 MC). What's more important to me is the working distance, which I expect to be a couple of cm shorter that 105 VR's at 1:1. I guess it's around 13 cm.
Probably Lance could measure and share the WD value at MFD.
Working distance is shorter most likely because the sensor focal plane is much closer to the lens mount compare to F mount. Ignore if you do but for those that might not know the white circle with a line through it shows you the focal plane of the camera.
mach250 wrote:
Working distance is shorter most likely because the sensor focal plane is much closer to the lens mount ...
WD is shorter for two reasons i) the lens barrel is longer than 105 VR's (105 MC barrel is as long as 105 VR + FTZ adapter) and ii) MFD is shorter (29 cm instead of 31.4 cm).
Mine arrived today. On my copy when I enable the focus limiting switch I get no different behaviour to normal. It allows me to autofocus at any distance and will hunt through the full range whilst attempting to focus on a close subject.
I (god forbid) looked at the manual and could see no reference to having to enable it in menus etc. Can anyone else who has it speak from experience? Is the close focus limiter working on yours?
Aside from this it feels good in the hand, works smoothly and I think it'll be a lot of fun.
