I don’t want to derail this thread with a discussion about AF. I’m just looking for feedback from someone that has this lens and now owns a Z9 to see if there’s an improvement on the AF performance compared to using a Z6 or Z7.
I feel the lens does perform better on the Z9, but to no greater or lesser degree than any other lens. That is to say, the improvement I get from the 85/1.8 or 24-70/2.8 is about the same as the improvement with the 105/2.8.
I think there are two areas where the lens is notably better on the Z9:
Hunting: 105's only real weakness is the amount of time it takes to hunt, and the Z9 tends to hunt less. Especially when using eye AF. This still doesn't excuse Nikon's horrible design decision to not include a far-focus setting on their focus limiter switch. I'm going to be angry about that one until the day I retire this lens!
AF tracking: The Z9 tracks AF much better than the Z6, and it's actually usable in macro range. Single point AF is good at holding focus as you move near/far. 3D tracking focus is good at allowing you to pick your focus point and then reframe. (It is NOT good at moving near/far... it tends to give up.). I know many people feel macro is a no-AF-zone, but I find it is pretty usable on the Z105/2.8, which was not true on the F105/2.8.
Here's a tiny fly (the size of a fruit fly) that I acquired with AF, and then blasted some frames off while panning and moving around to ensure I got him in the DOF:
Flaxh wrote:
I don’t want to derail this thread with a discussion about AF. I’m just looking for feedback from someone that has this lens and now owns a Z9 to see if there’s an improvement on the AF performance compared to using a Z6 or Z7.
Are you looking to see if this lens is good for portrait shooting?
I feel like people are often mistaking a macro lens which is really design for close up work so the focus rail is much longer than general purpose lens and therefore, the focus is slower and can hunt. A true macro(1:1) like this one does its best work at close up distance.
With that in mind, it does work well for portrait but I wouldn't use it too close to any human parts unless you actually want to see every details.
Flaxh wrote:
I don’t want to derail this thread with a discussion about AF. I’m just looking for feedback from someone that has this lens and now owns a Z9 to see if there’s an improvement on the AF performance compared to using a Z6 or Z7.
I just did a quick test on the Z7I with latest firmware and Z9 latest firmware. Using AFS, single point focusing an object at infinity(out the window) and then an object that is 12" away, the focusing on the Z9 is much faster(I'd say almost as much as half the time) as expected. Using eye AF at 8' away is about the same for both camera. But if the subject starts to run at you, expect the lens on the Z9 to work better. Again, all expected.
I'll tell yah. Every time I pick up this lens, I get a delightful feeling of how light weight and well balance it is. You would think a lens this size would be quite hefty but it's very featherweight feel.
CKrueger wrote:
I think there are two areas where the lens is notably better on the Z9:
Hunting: 105's only real weakness is the amount of time it takes to hunt, and the Z9 tends to hunt less. Especially when using eye AF. This still doesn't excuse Nikon's horrible design decision to not include a far-focus setting on their focus limiter switch. I'm going to be angry about that one until the day I retire this lens!
AF tracking: The Z9 tracks AF much better than the Z6, and it's actually usable in macro range. Single point AF is good at holding focus as you move near/far. 3D tracking focus is good at allowing you to pick your focus point and then reframe. (It is NOT good at moving near/far... it tends to give up.). I know many people feel macro is a no-AF-zone, but I find it is pretty usable on the Z105/2.8, which was not true on the F105/2.8. ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
this is me wrote:
I just did a quick test on the Z7I with latest firmware and Z9 latest firmware. Using AFS, single point focusing an object at infinity(out the window) and then an object that is 12" away, the focusing on the Z9 is much faster(I'd say almost as much as half the time) as expected. Using eye AF at 8' away is about the same for both camera. But if the subject starts to run at you, expect the lens on the Z9 to work better. Again, all expected.
I'll tell yah. Every time I pick up this lens, I get a delightful feeling of how light weight and well balance it is. You would think a lens this size would be quite hefty but it's very featherweight feel. ...Show more →
Ty both so much for this feedback, it is exactly what I was looking for. I'm shooting with the Z5 and considering picking up this lens mainly for macro and ocasionally some portraits and landscapes and it's good to know that the AF performance does improve with the Z9 since I'm expecting to eventually upgrade to a Z6III or Z7III and get some of those improvements.
Flaxh wrote:
Ty both so much for this feedback, it is exactly what I was looking for. I'm shooting with the Z5 and considering picking up this lens mainly for macro and ocasionally some portraits and landscapes and it's good to know that the AF performance does improve with the Z9 since I'm expecting to eventually upgrade to a Z6III or Z7III and get some of those improvements.
You’re welcome! I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with the Z105. It does a great job at macro of course. As a portrait lens, it has a nice quality to the background blur, and is only held back a bit by the fact that its AF speed is good, but not breathtaking like some other primes in this range. As a landscape lens it’s simply a good, solid prime. Sharp, no real optical flaws, and not a giant brick like many other first-party macros (including the F105).
If I had unlimited budget to play with, I’d recommend both the 105 and 85/1.8, as the 85/1.8 definitely focuses more quickly, and those rare AF hunts are near-painless on the 85. But that’s a lot of extra money for not much improvement.
---------------------------------------------
Ripolini wrote:
I find AF pretty usable on the F 105/2.8G in close-ups, even when I used it with D300!
Sorry, I should have expanded upon that a bit more. “Unusable” is pretty strong, and a bit hyperbolic.
I’ve used the F105G on my Z6 and Z9 until I got my Z. My specific AF complaints with it on my Z bodies are:
1) The VR is noisy and on 100% of the time
2) Continuous AF is noisy and makes the lens rattle constantly
3) Continuous AF is “ratchety”…. It tends to jump past the AF point and then come back to it, which means it’s constantly going SLIGHTLY out of focus and coming back
4) MF override during AF requires a pretty large turn of the focus ring. (I use this to get focus peaking after AF)
5) The speed it racks is pretty slow, so you’re best to “get close” with MF first
6) Hunting takes so long that it will ruin the moment, especially at portrait lengths
I was jealous of the 105VR when it was announced and I was shooting Canon. It’s a great lens, and it served me well. I especially liked its ability to take a 1.4x. I wasn’t planning on buying the Z105 originally, and still wonder if it was the best use of funds. But it’s definitely a nicer shooting experience on a Z body than the F105.
CKrueger wrote:
You’re welcome! I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with the Z105. It does a great job at macro of course. As a portrait lens, it has a nice quality to the background blur, and is only held back a bit by the fact that its AF speed is good, but not breathtaking like some other primes in this range. As a landscape lens it’s simply a good, solid prime. Sharp, no real optical flaws, and not a giant brick like many other first-party macros (including the F105).
If I had unlimited budget to play with, I’d recommend both the 105 and 85/1.8, as the 85/1.8 definitely focuses more quickly, and those rare AF hunts are near-painless on the 85. But that’s a lot of extra money for not much improvement. ...Show more →
Awesome, I'll probably order one soon since an instant rebate campaign from Nikon seems unlikely in the current context.
I'm aiming for a 14-30 + 24-200 + 105 micro for my landscape kit.
I picked up the lens this past Friday.... at "normal" portrait distances the lens is fast enough for anything you throw at it... not blazing fast... but "Nikon 105mm 1.4 I'll get the shot" fast. At macro distances in lower light it still hunts on occasion for me. Not a deal killer - but still present. I think it's more an "issue" of how the AF system works on Nikon's mirrorless and not an issue with the lens. Lower light reduces contrast in a scene, as does working at macro distances.... I think it's still just a tricky issue to solve.
My AF-S lenses are SIGNIFICANTLY faster on the Z9, while my Z lenses seem more sure footed. I moved from a Z5 -----> Z9.
Know your question already had some feedback but thought I'd throw in my two cents.
Ty both so much for this feedback, it is exactly what I was looking for. I'm shooting with the Z5 and considering picking up this lens mainly for macro and ocasionally some portraits and landscapes and it's good to know that the AF performance does improve with the Z9 since I'm expecting to eventually upgrade to a Z6III or Z7III and get some of those improvements.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
I picked up the lens this past Friday.... at "normal" portrait distances the lens is fast enough for anything you throw at it... not blazing fast... but "Nikon 105mm 1.4 I'll get the shot" fast. At macro distances in lower light it still hunts on occasion for me. Not a deal killer - but still present. I think it's more an "issue" of how the AF system works on Nikon's mirrorless and not an issue with the lens. Lower light reduces contrast in a scene, as does working at macro distances.... I think it's still just a tricky issue to solve. ...Show more →
I agree with your estimations of normal portrait distances. I’m really upset that there’s no focus limiter setting for “far”, because that one change would have made this a MUCH more useful “normal” lens. It already performs really well in every other regard, it’s just that rare focus hunting that everyone suffers occasionally that makes me on edge shooting this lens, in a way I don’t have to worry about with my 85/1.8. I have to stay on my toes when AF’ing in single-point!
As far as AF hunting at close range… I’d agree with you except I think it’s not really a Nikon problem as much as it’s a matter of physics. Like you said, there’s so much light loss from extension at macro ranges that you’re effectively AF’ing at an f/5.6 (or smaller) aperture. Combine that with an AF motor that’s pretty quick and a tiny amount of DOF at macro range, it’s a worst-case scenario for AF. Similar to shooting wildlife at dusk with a TC at f/8.
Like shooting wildlife, I find that if you get the lens close to focus before pressing AF, you get great results. If you expect it to find your subject hunting from infinity to 1:1, you’re going to be often-disappointed!
I’ve shot a big pile of AF macro lenses over the years, and while mirrorless has been a huge boon for AF macro, it’s still a difficult edge case. Perhaps we’ll get more ML in our AF system in years to come, and finally have 99% reliable macro AF, the way we have bird AF now? Sign me up!
I've heard others wish for an AF limiter to non macro distances... I've not seen the need. The camera never seems to hunt (for me) in the macro distances when taking portraits etc. If the lens slogged back and forth or failed to be snappy at normal distances I'd tend to agree.
Either way, I'm extremely happy with the lens (aka my wife is, this purchase was for her). She's a thief and has stolen my Z9 and 300mm 2.8VRII in the past month. I was excited to get her into photography (finally) but I am regretting that decision.
CKrueger wrote:
I agree with your estimations of normal portrait distances. I’m really upset that there’s no focus limiter setting for “far”, because that one change would have made this a MUCH more useful “normal” lens. It already performs really well in every other regard, it’s just that rare focus hunting that everyone suffers occasionally that makes me on edge shooting this lens, in a way I don’t have to worry about with my 85/1.8. I have to stay on my toes when AF’ing in single-point!
As far as AF hunting at close range… I’d agree with you except I think it’s not really a Nikon problem as much as it’s a matter of physics. Like you said, there’s so much light loss from extension at macro ranges that you’re effectively AF’ing at an f/5.6 (or smaller) aperture. Combine that with an AF motor that’s pretty quick and a tiny amount of DOF at macro range, it’s a worst-case scenario for AF. Similar to shooting wildlife at dusk with a TC at f/8.
Like shooting wildlife, I find that if you get the lens close to focus before pressing AF, you get great results. If you expect it to find your subject hunting from infinity to 1:1, you’re going to be often-disappointed!
I’ve shot a big pile of AF macro lenses over the years, and while mirrorless has been a huge boon for AF macro, it’s still a difficult edge case. Perhaps we’ll get more ML in our AF system in years to come, and finally have 99% reliable macro AF, the way we have bird AF now? Sign me up! ...Show more →
I'm surprised the hunting doesn't bother you. I will admit it hunts faster than most macro lenses, but it still turns the viewfinder to absolute mush, and then sometimes misses its subject on the way back to infinity.
With subject detection being so good on the Z9 I don't tend to have many hunting issues, either. It's more when I use single-point AF, and manage to put the AF point on something without much contrast (ie: the middle of a leaf).
To be fair, since the latest AF improvement, my Z6 is pretty darn good, too. But when it happens I have enough time to groan as my image dissolves.
I like my 105S a lot... I've used a lot of macro lenses over the users, and it's the best I've owned. But if Nikon made a MkII with a physical focus range window, TC support, and a three-position AF limiter, I'd buy it!
CKrueger wrote:
But if Nikon made a MkII with a physical focus range window, TC support, and a three-position AF limiter, I'd buy it!
I guess the high performance of the 105 MC comes from the rear aspherical element too, I mean the element close to the sensor plane. Therefore, I doubt Nikon will re-design the lens, and we won't see any MkII version compatible with current Z TCs.
However ...
In the film era, Nikon made TC14A &TC14B, TC201 &TC301.
The TC-14A was compatible with the AI-S Micro 105/2.8 (I did use that combo). Therefore, I think that Nikon could manufacture a TC14 ZII designed specifically for the 105 MC, by utilizing all current technologies (low dispersion glass, aspherical elements, etc.); it could cost the same as the current Z TC 1.4X (consider that TC14 A and TC 201 were less priced than TC14B and TC 310, respectively) with minor IQ degradation.
This way, the 105 MC could be transformed, when required, into a 150 mm f/4 1.4:1 macro lens. That would be funny.
About physical focus range window and three-position AF limiter, I think Nikon designers already took their decision
