Mine works. You need to be within 0.5mt and 0.29mt which is only a range of 0.21mts or 210mm. It seems a little limited in it's use, but that must be what Nikon thinks is the optimum range. I would have thought maybe 1mt down to 0.29mts.
Lance B wrote:
Mine works. You need to be within 0.5mt and 0.29mt which is only a range of 0.21mts or 210mm. It seems a little limited in it's use, but that must be what Nikon thinks is the optimum range. I would have thought maybe 1mt down to 0.29mts.
Thanks for checking Lance. I remembered this morning that I hadn't kept up with firmware updates for a little while. I was still on firmware 3.0. I don't think it's in the firmware release notes but having updated to 3.31 it now works. It probably made it in around 3.2 or 3.3.
suteetat wrote:
Bokeh seems smoother and not quite so busy like 105/2.8 AF-S VR.
The bokeh of my 105/2.8 AF-S VR has never been busy.
Could you please provide examples demonstrating that 105 MC bokeh is not "so busy" as 105/2.8 AF-S VR'?
Probably you had a faulty sample.
Thanx.
The bokeh of my 105/2.8 AF-S VR has never been busy.
Could you please provide examples demonstrating that 105 MC bokeh is not "so busy" as 105/2.8 AF-S VR'?
Probably you had a faulty sample.
Thanx.
May be busy is a wrong word but your second picture shows what I don't like about 105/2.8 VR quite well.
Out of focus stems and leaves tend to have this somewhat harsh double edge outline. Your picture is not too bad but
in comparison to my sample picture of the flower, it has less pronounced edge and seemed to have softer more diffused edge. I realized that your picture is taken at f14 while mine is at f3 but I think even at f3-4, 105/2.8 VR still showed this behavior quite a bit more than 105/2.8s.
suteetat wrote:
I realized that your picture is taken at f14 while mine is at f3 ...
Exactly
suteetat wrote:
but I think even at f3-4, 105/2.8 VR still showed this behavior quite a bit more than 105/2.8s.
Do you have side-by-side pictures that show bokeh differences at same aperture?
The portrait was taken at f/4 and I see a quite good bokeh and no double edge in the background.
Here is another picture @ f/4, with more distant background:
Do you have side-by-side pictures that show bokeh differences at same aperture?
The portrait was taken at f/4 and I see a quite good bokeh and no double edge in the background.
Here is another picture @ f/4, with more distant background:
I will have to go through very old pictures. Mostly flower shots with lots of stems and leaves just behind flowers were what was bothering me the most from what I recalled. I ended up using 105/2.8 AF-S mostly when I scuba dive. On land, for flowers and things like that, I usually go for Leica 100/2.8 R instead.
suteetat wrote:
I will have to go through very old pictures. Mostly flower shots with lots of stems and leaves just behind flowers were what was bothering me the most from what I recalled. I ended up using 105/2.8 AF-S mostly when I scuba dive. On land, for flowers and things like that, I usually go for Leica 100/2.8 R instead.
I see. Here is another picture (magnification: 1:2.5), taken few minutes ago with AF-S 105 VR @ f/5.6; is the flower behind "busy"?
Z6 w/AF-S 105/2.8 VR @ f/5.6
I prefer using my Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar for flowers, but only because I carry usually also my AF ED 200/4 Micro that I use for 1:1, or better isolation of the subject (flowers included) from the background, or shy animals. Probably you were bothered by stems and leaves behind flowers for this reason: subject isolation from the background is not that good when using a 100/105 mm IF lens that shortens its FL at close distances.
So I wonder if you misinterpret out-of-focus rendition and subject isolation from the background. The AF ED 200/4 Micro-Nikkor has better subject isolation than 105 VR, but inferior oof rendition (both foreground and background).
Ripolini wrote:
I prefer using my Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar for flowers, but only because I carry usually also my AF ED 200/4 Micro that I use for 1:1, or better isolation of the subject (flowers included) from the background, or shy animals. Probably you were bothered by stems and leaves behind flowers for this reason: subject isolation from the background is not that good when using a 100/105 mm IF lens that shortens its FL at close distances.
So I wonder if you misinterpret out-of-focus rendition and subject isolation from the background. The AF ED 200/4 Micro-Nikkor has better subject isolation than 105 VR, but inferior oof rendition (both foreground and background). ...Show more →
105S above, 105VR below.
Both shots at f3.2, 1/125, iso was 1100 on 105VR, 1250 on 105S so I bumped up exposure a little in ACR otherwise
just resized and converted to jpg with no other adjustment.
I definitely have preference for 105S rendition. Busy may not be the best description of the difference but 105s background is more diffused, softer, less intrusive, distracted or whatever.
I realized focus point is not 100% identical and 105s is a touched closer to the subject but not enough to make a difference in the background blur in my opinion.
suteetat wrote:
105S above, 105VR below.
Both shots at f3.2
...Busy may not be the best description of the difference but 105s background is more diffused, softer, less intrusive, distracted or whatever.
Yes, tiny differences.
I think many people can evaluate them by looking at your pictures. Thanks.
It would be great to compare 105 S to your Leica 100/2.8 Apo
As Thom Hogan wrote in his recently updated 105 VR review, "Despite some slight back-sliding (optical edge performance) and the age of this lens, it's still a very strong performer".
For this reason I still own my 12-year old (Made in Japan) 105 VR together with 100/2 Makro-Planar and AF 200/4 Micro. No picture has been ruined by poor oof rendition (I can't say the same for other Nikkor lenses).
Z users have two options: buy the 105 S or the 105 VR; the latter works on DSLR too, accepts AF TCs, and good samples can be found in the second hand market for 5-600 $/€. For still photography, both are (at least) very strong performers. For videos, I guess the 105 S is preferable.
Hey guys,
I am interested in the LoCA performance of this one.
If you have the time, can you make some images like here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1666092/5#15392123
From wide open stopping down to f/8 or f/11.
Also, if you have a comparable lens (like the 105 VR), that would be super useful to compare.
Thanks!
Do you have side-by-side pictures that show bokeh differences at same aperture?
The portrait was taken at f/4 and I see a quite good bokeh and no double edge in the background.
Here is another picture @ f/4, with more distant background:
No offense, but if you look at the rope gate sweeping down behind the old Nun, you can clearly see the line-fringing in it that Suteetat describes. To me, that's the most obvious part of a busy bokeh. While it's not as bad as many other lenses, especially many older and 3rd-party zooms, it is still quite visible to me.
My take is this new Z 105 is pretty nice -- definitely sharper than the older one, and significantly smoother bokeh. I have the 105/1.4 and it is a bokeh cream master, and because I don't do a lot of super close macro, it remains my preferred 105. But if I did not have it and/or did do more close macro, I would snag one of these Z 105's in a nano-sec...
Anyone had a hands-on comparison between the 105S and the 85S as a portrait lens? I remember using the old 105mm f/2.8G VR as a sometimes portrait lens many years ago and really enjoyed the results.
I already purchased an 85mm f/1.8S and it is arriving today (replacing a Sigma 105 Art as I move to all Z). I expect it will be great, though I've been accustomed to a bit longer prime for this part of my lineup. Would love some thoughts on how the 85/105 S stack up.
