Califmike33 wrote:
This is a very long thread and I know there's a lot of experienced people on here with Nikon glass experience.
I'm interested in the 105 mm F 2.5 AI I know it's like took the world's most famous picture of the Afghan girl and all of that but I'm getting like mixed people telling me different things on different forms about this lens some say it's sharp wide open some say it's not.
I'm wondering people that own this lens on here or have used it what is your take on this lens it seems to be like legendary I'm definitely ready to pull the trigger on one I just want to hear from a few more people on it thanks guys....Show more →
I had always thought McCurry used the ais version of the Nikkor 105mm f2.5. I did a search, and it verified that it was the ais. Additionally, I have always thought the 105mm f2.5 was sharp - even wide open. Well, McCurry shot of the Afghan girl wide open at f2.5 using a Nikon FM2, and Kodachrome 64. Some Nikkors are only meant to be used wide open - it is what they were designed to do. Any 300mm f2.8 on up is in that category, but others come to my mind. The 200mm f2, 180mm f2,8 135mm f2.0, the 105mm f1.8, and possibly the f2.5 usually work well wide open. As to built-in hoods - I wish all my lenses had them. No piles of various proprietary hoods to store and find, always at the ready to add contrast, and shade the light. The only inadequate one I can think of is the 135mm f2.0 is too short (+it has a dent), but I can not part with such a great lens. The ais version has a deeper hood.
Finally going through the shots I took at my daughter's performance. The Zf exceeded my expectations in every way. I got to the event with the camera not setup at all. I had enough time to setup RAW+JPG to the proper cards and got the camera into full manual mode. I felt like I was shooting film again. SOOC with the Exceed 7 processor set to Standard is more than enough for what I need for the slideshow and video. The 300/2.8 was awesome. The real standout is the 80-200/4.5 with the square baffle...wow! I was rushing at one point and accidentally put the camera into monochrome mode...It really is just a quick mode to get into monochrome, but the output is very nice. My not so little one in a candid moment between scenes.
BLLX wrote:
Just received this 105/4 Ai-S Micro today.
Payed for what equals approx $40 😱 Don't really need another macro lens but for that price.... 😊
Gave it a quick spin in the garden
Nice find Morten and great first-results! I have the later f/2.8 version, which of course is a full stop faster (great for sometimes dim macro-shots) and incorporates CRC for "improved close focus" rendering, but honestly think you've got the better lens there with the older f/4 version. Yours doesn't have CRC, so it's actually 105mm throughout its focus range (the CRC shortens the focal length as you focus closer), so has a better working distance at close-focus. Also, when using the PN-11 to go beyond 1:2 magnification, the f/2.8 runs into the situation where the CRC is set for infinity, but you're at slightly above 1:2, and the results are actually worse than a non-CRC lens (in fact the f/2.8 lens has markings warning you to stop down when in that range to avoid crappy results). Overall, I kind of regretted purchasing the f/2.8 lens (for which I sold my beloved 105/2.5 to finance). I later got the Voigtländer 120/2.5 APO-Lanthar which goes to 1:1 without an extension tube, and is just a much higher quality macro lens (though massively more expensive!). I also re-purchased the 105/.2.5, and now my minty 105/2.8 is a shelf queen.
grantgoodes wrote:
Nice find Morten and great first-results! I have the later f/2.8 version, which of course is a full stop faster (great for sometimes dim macro-shots) and incorporates CRC for "improved close focus" rendering, but honestly think you've got the better lens there with the older f/4 version. Yours doesn't have CRC, so it's actually 105mm throughout its focus range (the CRC shortens the focal length as you focus closer), so has a better working distance at close-focus. Also, when using the PN-11 to go beyond 1:2 magnification, the f/2.8 runs into the situation where the CRC is set for infinity, but you're at slightly above 1:2, and the results are actually worse than a non-CRC lens (in fact the f/2.8 lens has markings warning you to stop down when in that range to avoid crappy results). Overall, I kind of regretted purchasing the f/2.8 lens (for which I sold my beloved 105/2.5 to finance). I later got the Voigtländer 120/2.5 APO-Lanthar which goes to 1:1 without an extension tube, and is just a much higher quality macro lens (though massively more expensive!). I also re-purchased the 105/.2.5, and now my minty 105/2.8 is a shelf queen.
Many thanks - and thanks for the info
That CV 120 is so nice
I have used the Raynox close-up lenses on the 55/2.8 micro to get closer but haven't tried on the 105/4 yet.
But I must admit I mostly use my Olympus E-M5 III + 60/2.8 for macro. It is just sooo easy to nail focus and it has a brilliant bracket system + in body focus stacking. But even so I really enjoy using these old MF lenses
BLLX wrote:
That CV 120 is so nice
I have used the Raynox close-up lenses on the 55/2.8 micro to get closer but haven't tried on the 105/4 yet.
But I must admit I mostly use my Olympus E-M5 III + 60/2.8 for macro. It is just sooo easy to nail focus and it has a brilliant bracket system + in body focus stacking. But even so I really enjoy using these old MF lenses
Without going off-topic on this thread, interesting that you prefer AF for Macro. My limited experience with (admittedly older) AF technology is that Macro is better done with MF lenses: I could never nail the focus with AF. Also, I love to play with my PB-4 bellows, which of course can't support AF!
The CV 120/2.5 is indeed a real gem of a lens, probably my nicest lens overall (with the possible exception of the Nikkor 80/2.8 on my Plaubel Makina or my Noct-Nikkor), and has proved well worth the price I paid. I also really love my newest Voigtländer, the 180/4 APO-Lanthar, and it has kicked my 180/2.8 AF-D to the curb.
Regarding close-up lenses, I generally prefer to use tubes like the PN-11 (for which your 105/4 has nice markings already engraved). Ultimately, when I want to get _really_ close, it's time for the PB-4, though on the bellows I usually attach my Schneider Kreuznach Componon-S 135/5.6. I also like to use some of the shorter extension rings like the PK-11a or even the super-thin K-1 on my 24mm lens as that is just such a compact way to get close.
grantgoodes wrote:
Without going off-topic on this thread, interesting that you prefer AF for Macro. My limited experience with (admittedly older) AF technology is that Macro is better done with MF lenses: I could never nail the focus with AF. Also, I love to play with my PB-4 bellows, which of course can't support AF!
The CV 120/2.5 is indeed a real gem of a lens, probably my nicest lens overall (with the possible exception of the Nikkor 80/2.8 on my Plaubel Makina or my Noct-Nikkor), and has proved well worth the price I paid. I also really love my newest Voigtländer, the 180/4 APO-Lanthar, and it has kicked my 180/2.8 AF-D to the curb.
Regarding close-up lenses, I generally prefer to use tubes like the PN-11 (for which your 105/4 has nice markings already engraved). Ultimately, when I want to get _really_ close, it's time for the PB-4, though on the bellows I usually attach my Schneider Kreuznach Componon-S 135/5.6. I also like to use some of the shorter extension rings like the PK-11a or even the super-thin K-1 on my 24mm lens as that is just such a compact way to get close.
While I enjoy MF macros, and they seem to be some of my sharper MF Nikkors, AF provides automatic focus stacking. I've used MF lenses for focus stacking, but it works much easier with AF, especially for macros; in fact, I've mostly relegated MF focus stacking to wider scenics, and even then it's somewhat rare.
For those that use the TC-16A to assist with MF, does it perform focus stacking on the DSLR's with MF lenses?
pbraymond wrote:
For those that use the TC-16A to assist with MF, does it perform focus stacking on the DSLR's with MF lenses?
Ray, I coulda swore I shared this already, but I can't find it. I recently got into shooting through a micropscope, and to that end picked up Helicon's Focus & Remote software. I have always used manual focus lenses for macro focus stacking, but this approach is really amazing - however, it uses AF lenses. I figured it would work with the modified TC-16A, and it does. Here is an 89 image stack of a Trilobite fossil shot through the 55mm f3.5 ai + the tc-16a near mfd. My home made super low camera support. (now, being modified this afternoon) was a bit tippy from the mass of the lens & camera body being aimed down. Without adding to the mass of the base - I think the new modified version will be much more resistant to tipping, and it is only 0.25" inches higher.
89 image focus stack of a Trilobyte fossil - 55mm f3.5 ai + modified TC-16a
Setup of focus stack. Box of 50 blank microscope slides as counterweight. 35mm f1.4 ais
Modifications are done for the low camera support. I added a 0.25" x 7.125 inch diameter vinyl floor scrap to the 0.125 x 4.75" heat moldable plastic (from a office furniture manufacturer scrap) original base. It had all been held with glue to two scraps of thick steel I have been fashioning custom parts out of for 45 years. Too small now, but a good way to add mass to this project. I removed the vertical camera grip to lessen the lever effect, and bolted the whole lot together with two threaded brass screws counter sunk into the base. The over-all height is 3.625" (9.2cm) and weights 1.75 ibs, or just shy of 800 grams (not including the head). The small ball head is held on by a 0.25" 20 tpi threaded brass rod I tapped into the steel pieces to also hold them together - it also adds additional weight.
Prior to the modification - ball head removed, and just resting on the vinyl flooring scrap
Base all glued and screwed together
Whole unit
In use - it would take a lot of force to tip this over
