I've been using the Nikon G 105 micro for a long time, and have generally been pretty happy with it, especially at the small apertures I use it for in product/macro photography.
The Z version was well reviewed when it came out, but I didn't see the need to switch because the G works well with the FTZ bodies. Lately I've been using the G micro a lot more though, and it sometimes will hunt a couple times or so before nailing focus on a lower contrast surface.
For those that have used both the Z and G version, is it worth switching up?
I cannot help with your specific upgrade question, as I have not used the G lens. In addition to the 105 Z, I do have most of the Nikon MF micro's and the AF-D 60mm and 200mm micros as well. The 105 Z is hands down the best of the bunch for me. The things that stand out are the image quality, and the combo of decent AF and excellent VR. Lens resolution is top shelf, even among the Z lenses and that is saying something. The AF/VR combo has allowed me to attempt macro things handheld, that I never would try in the past. I can't say how much of an improvement it is over the G lens, but this is one lens I am keeping long term.
It would be a relatively inexpensive rental to try out the Z side by side with your lens, just a suggestion.
sungphoto wrote:
...sometimes will hunt a couple times or so before nailing focus on a lower contrast surface.
This shouldn't depend on the lens but on the camera and the way its AF works.
Let me add that, instead of specialized cross-type sensors (which look for detail in both horizontal and vertical directions like on DSLRs), the phase-detection pixels on a mirrorless image sensor are primarily line-sensitive (typically horizontal).
sungphoto wrote:
For those that have used both the Z and G version, is it worth switching up?
I had the 105 G, then bought the Z 105 MC. I compared them side by side and my findings are:
- the Z is sharper
- the Z has negligible fringing (LoCA) at the wider apertures, while the G suffers from it (but it can be reduced to some extent by using NX Studio);
- I prefer the out-of-focus rendition of the G lens.
I kept the Z and sold the G because the latter was slightly off-center.
I still own the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar and have compared it to the Z 105 MC: the Z is sharper but the Zeiss has smoother transitions from the plane of focus to the out-of-focus planes. Therefore, the Zeiss has definitely more 3D rendering and has a more neutral color rendition. It suffers from LoCA though. So, in the end, I kept the Z 105 MC (sharp, with AF, VR & lighter than 100/2 + FTZ II) and the 100/2 Makro-Planar (great built quality, nice rendition overall).
Thanks for the replies, this is helpful. The CA at wider apertures on the G version hasn't been an issue because I generally shoot it stopped down to at least f10-14 depending on what I'm shooting. It would be nice to have the option to be able to use the macro lens at wider apertures for more creative shots.
The main reason I am looking to switch is the weight and balance of the Z vs the G. The G plus FTZ is approximately 855 grams (720 for the lens and 135 for the FTZ1), and handholding the G version is a little awkward with the FTZ bump and is front heavy. The G version is built like a tank though.
I am pretty sure I'm going to pick up the Z now that I've had a few days to percolate on it.
I used them on different bodies, and not at the same time, so take this with a grain of salt:
The Z version has a flatter focus field which helps if you're photographing flat objects, like in the document or film digitization use case. Wide open, both lenses will deliver corners that are slightly worse than the center, but the Z version will achieve uniformity much sooner, around f/4 while the G will need f/8 where the overall resolution will be lower due to diffraction.
old-gregg wrote:
I used them on different bodies, and not at the same time, so take this with a grain of salt:
The Z version has a flatter focus field which helps if you're photographing flat objects, like in the document or film digitization use case. Wide open, both lenses will deliver corners that are slightly worse than the center, but the Z version will achieve uniformity much sooner, around f/4 while the G will need f/8 where the overall resolution will be lower due to diffraction.
That's good to know. I used my G on a D850 for 35mm film digitization, and found it to work pretty well in my rig, but good to know that the Z would be even better.
sungphoto wrote:
The main reason I am looking to switch is the weight and balance of the Z vs the G. The G plus FTZ is approximately 855 grams (720 for the lens and 135 for the FTZ1), and handholding the G version is a little awkward with the FTZ bump and is front heavy. The G version is built like a tank though.
Yes, however - for close-ups - I used the 105 G mostly on tripod and I attached the tripod head to the FTZ 1 (w/Kirk PZ-130 plate, https://kirkphoto.com/products/universal-camera-plate-pz-130u) and not to the camera. This way the balance was quite good.
NIKON D780 w/AF-S ED 105/2.8G VR @ f/11, 1/100 s, 100 ISO
NIKON Z6 w/AF-S ED 105/2.8G VR @ f/9, 1/4 s, 100 ISO, 20 focus-stacked images combined with ZS
NIKON Z6 w/AF-S ED 105/2.8G VR @ f/16, 1/5 s, 100 ISO
NIKON Z6 w/AF-S ED 105/2.8G VR @ f/5.6, 1/250 s, 100 ISO
