Re: "Official" Nikon 105 f/2.8S Micro Discussion and Image Thread
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).
Re: "Official" Nikon 105 f/2.8S Micro Discussion and Image Thread
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).
Jul 09, 2021 at 10:22 AM
Previous versions of Ripolini's message #15645518 « "Official" Nikon 105 f/2.8S Micro Discussion and Image Thread »
