hi again just warwick
can anyone, out there help.I am looking a buying a nikon 105mm marco (price from $1229 to $1500 aus)
the pro and com of this len, i looked a the tarmon and sigma but wasn't happy with the build Qly of the lens
thank you
warwick
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='warwick' timestamp='1295069024' post='5521']
hi again just warwick
can anyone, out there help.I am looking a buying a nikon 105mm marco (price from $1229 to $1500 aus)
the pro and com of this len, i looked a the tarmon and sigma but wasn't happy with the build Qly of the lens
thank you
warwick
[/quote]
It's not an APO lens... neither is the newer Canon 100 2.8L IS macro but I prefer the latter for the build.
The 200 f/4D Micro-Nikkor is the one I'd go for, if I was serious about macro on Nikon.
GTW
01-15-2011, 05:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-15-2011, 05:37 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1295070003' post='5522']
It's not an APO lens... neither is the newer Canon 100 2.8L IS macro but I prefer the latter for the build.
The 200 f/4D Micro-Nikkor is the one I'd go for, if I was serious about macro on Nikon.
GTW
[/quote]
The 200mm f4 from Nikon is nothing special, not sure why one would go for that one. Its reputation is not so deserved.
For longer macro lenses, the Tamron 180mm f3.5 and Sigma 150mm f2.8 are better performers.
The Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is not really special. Yes, the build of the Tamron is a bit.. plasticky. But its optics are very good.
The Nikon is ok, but quite a bit more expensive.
The Tamron extends, the Nikon does not. But, the Nikon is longer when you have the hood mounted (the Tamron, with its very recessed front element does not need its hood, ever).
The Tokina 100m f2.8 is a very good macro lens too, with a build quality matching that of the Nikon. It is more affordable, it does extend but quite like the Tamron it too has a very recessed front element, making a sun hood not necessary. The Tamron beats the Nikon is sharpness. The Nikon has VR, but the VR implementation is not of much use for macro itself.
If you have a Nikon camera without the "standard" Nikon AF motor, then do take care with choosing which lens.
My favorite macro lenses for Nikon mount:
* Tokina 35mm f2.8 macro DX. Lovely "short" macro lens
* Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro/Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro. Both great optics, for an affordable price.
* Sigma 150mm f2.8mm HSM macro. Great optics, nice build, affordable.
* Tamron 180mm f3.5 macro. Great optics, a bit longer than the Sigma.
Pros for the Nikon 105mm VR:
* Does not extend.
* Silent AF-S AF.
* VR, useful when using it as short tele.
Cons:
* Its exposed front element makes one need a hood in situations, making it longer than the extending Tamron and Tokina who do not need a hood.
* Expensive.
* Not the best optics in its class.
You can not really buy a bad macro lens, so even if you chose the Nikon you will still get good results.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295112791' post='5535']
The 200mm f4 from Nikon is nothing special, not sure why one would go for that one. Its reputation is not so deserved.
For longer macro lenses, the Tamron 180mm f3.5 and Sigma 150mm f2.8 are better performers.[/quote]
I haven't compared with the Tamron and the Sigma and neither am I a macro person... but the 200 f4D is exceptionally well corrected for CA... second only to the 200 f/2 (@f/2)... but you'd expect that from a slow lens. I was almost about to pick one up as a more portable 200 to use alongside the f/2.
GTW
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295112791' post='5535']
The Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is not really special. Yes, the build of the Tamron is a bit.. plasticky. But its optics are very good.
The Nikon is ok, but quite a bit more expensive.
The Tamron beats the Nikon is sharpness.
[/quote]
I'm new to Digital SLR photography, and to lens reviews. One of the challenges seems to be balancing users' personal experiences with lenses with what the lens reviews reveal - or should that be 'seem to' reveal? I say that because the review here of the Nikon lens (AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR) is very positive, with 4.5 stars for each of optical quality, mechanical quality and price / performance, and highly recommended:
"In terms of sheer performance the AF-S 105mm f/2.8G was able to beat its already very good predecessor by a small margin. The resolution is excellent straight from the max. aperture setting and the peak performance is reached between f/4 and f/5.6. Typical for a macro lens the Nikkor is virtually free of distortions and vignetting is usually nothing to worry about. CAs are low at large aperture settings but increase to comparatively high levels at and beyond f/8 - in absolute terms CAs remain moderate though. The mechanical quality of the lens is very good."
Is it that you're basing judgements on different criteria?
I'm very interested because I have the Nikon 105mm micro lens high on my list of next buys... but have a £100 discount offer on the 85mm micro! That didn't review as well here, mainly because of the vignetting.
Ian
[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1295175174' post='5570']
I'm new to Digital SLR photography, and to lens reviews. One of the challenges seems to be balancing users' personal experiences with lenses with what the lens reviews reveal - or should that be 'seem to' reveal? I say that because the review here of the Nikon lens (AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR) is very positive, with 4.5 stars for each of optical quality, mechanical quality and price / performance, and highly recommended:
"In terms of sheer performance the AF-S 105mm f/2.8G was able to beat its already very good predecessor by a small margin. The resolution is excellent straight from the max. aperture setting and the peak performance is reached between f/4 and f/5.6. Typical for a macro lens the Nikkor is virtually free of distortions and vignetting is usually nothing to worry about. CAs are low at large aperture settings but increase to comparatively high levels at and beyond f/8 - in absolute terms CAs remain moderate though. The mechanical quality of the lens is very good."
Is it that you're basing judgements on different criteria?
I'm very interested because I have the Nikon 105mm micro lens high on my list of next buys... but have a £100 discount offer on the 85mm micro! That didn't review as well here, mainly because of the vignetting.
Ian
[/quote]
You can disregard my opinion, obviously. But it is based on many reviews, many personal accounts, my "hunches" and what I have seen in images. I just can not be all that impressed by this Nikkor, except that it is well put together.
Even though photozone found exceptionally high resolution figures, many swear that it is less in sharpness feel and bokeh than for instance the Tamron 90mm. Some reviews show it to be relatively poor in contrast.
And then it is just so expensive (you can get the awesome Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro for that price).
Still, there are no really bad macro lenses... so you will always get ok results. I just fail to be impressed by thisone.
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1295151568' post='5562']
I haven't compared with the Tamron and the Sigma and neither am I a macro person... but the 200 f4D is exceptionally well corrected for CA... second only to the 200 f/2 (@f/2)... but you'd expect that from a slow lens. I was almost about to pick one up as a more portable 200 to use alongside the f/2.
GTW
[/quote]
Well, I have to rectify my post. The 200mm f4 is good, just heavy and dog slow in AF. What makes it stand out is the contrast. And that is worth a lot.
I use micro 105mm VR on DX and FX bodies. The contrast of this lens is very very good. The length does not change and I never had to use the hood for the macro work. It has a solid build (mostly metal, therefore heavy), fast and silent AF (if you need) and an average focus ring (compared to Zeiss'). If you can't decide on Nikon or Tamron (90mm), test both of them. I was also very uncertain which one to choose (because of the price of Nikon), then I saw a good second hand copy of it and bought it. I never looked back...
Serkan
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295112791' post='5535']
The Tokina 100m f2.8 is a very good macro lens too, with a build quality matching that of the Nikon.
[/quote]
I'd see it slightly below the Nikon (no doubt better than Tamron, though). Plus, there's no AF-S and VR, of course, it extends when focusing close, and features that strange Tokina focus clutch, AF is very slow.
Good lens, for sure, but the whole package is less tempting than the 105 VR.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1295151568' post='5562']
I was almost about to pick one up as a more portable 200 to use alongside the f/2.
[/quote]
Especially for someone used to the 200/2 VR the AF of the 200/4 will probably be frustratingly slow.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
|
