Is there maybe a Nikkor 105VR review in the pipeline on FX?
Those unprecedented borders on DX - how do they fare?
Thanks
Well,
I personally find the resolution chart of all 60,90,100,105,150mm Macros boring. They all are excellent.
The question is - does this lens brakes the record or is just another excellent in term of resolution lens.
The difference between them are
- features - VR/IS/OS, constant length, working distance
- build quality
- CA
- loCA
- bokey
- flare glare resistance - the "Achilles hill" of those macros. E.g there is a big difference between Tokina 100macro and Sigma 150 non OS macro. Canon 100 non IS is somewhere in between. Unfortunately this parameter is difficult to measure in scientific way. The easiest way is to get lens and use it for a while. That is actuaqly the biggest diference between canon and nikon reviews. Markus shares real life experience while canon reviews are mostly scientific based.
That is why I prefer to read PZ Nikon reviews, even if I'm Canon user.
[quote name='AAC7man' timestamp='1340139545' post='18975']
Is there maybe a Nikkor 105VR review in the pipeline on FX?
Those unprecedented borders on DX - how do they fare?
Thanks
[/quote]
It is in the pipeline ( I think Markus just needs some time to write the article ).
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1340208102' post='18987']
It is in the pipeline ( I think Markus just needs some time to write the article ).
[/quote]
Thanks
One day I'll make the jump to FX, my existing 60mm AF-D will be a good standard lens, but a bit short for many macro applications.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1340261494' post='18999']
And after the upgrade, I realized that longer FL (e.g. Sigma 150mm) would be a better choice.
[/quote]
If you already have the 105mm VR, then for the macro purpose you can get the extra reach via a 1.4X teleconverter (then you even get a 1.4:1 maximum magnification). Of course, this is a choice only if you like the lens and want to keep it.
Frank
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1340263916' post='19000']
If you already have the 105mm VR, then for the macro purpose you can get the extra reach via a 1.4X teleconverter (then you even get a 1.4:1 maximum magnification). Of course, this is a choice only if you like the lens and want to keep it.
Frank
[/quote]
Hi Frank,
That's - potentially - very interesting..!
Does adding a teleconverter always increase minimum focusing distance? By how much (is it a simple formula)?
I have the 105VR and am finding min. focus distance for 1:1 very close to the front of the lens, particularly with the lens hood fitted. Markus did sort of warn me..!
Could I use a 1.7 TC to increase min. focus distance (reach) more again? And get 1.7:1 magnification?
I guess the downside may be a darker image in the viewfinder with the loss of 1 (1.4TC) or 1.5 (1.7TC) stops on the aperture...
Ian
[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1340270894' post='19001']
Hi Frank,
That's - potentially - very interesting..!
Does adding a teleconverter always increase minimum focusing distance? By how much (is it a simple formula)?
I have the 105VR and am finding min. focus distance for 1:1 very close to the front of the lens, particularly with the lens hood fitted. Markus did sort of warn me..!
Could I use a 1.7 TC to increase min. focus distance (reach) more again? And get 1.7:1 magnification?
I guess the downside may be a darker image in the viewfinder with the loss of 1 (1.4TC) or 1.5 (1.7TC) stops on the aperture...
Ian
[/quote]
Hi Ian:
As far as I know, the minimum focus distance is maintained when using a teleconverter. So, if you use a 1.4x teleconverter and focus at the minimum foucus distance, you will get a 1.4:1 magnification because of increase of the focal length. If you only want to get 1:1 magnification, then you do not need to put the subject at the minimumn distance--in this sense the focus distance for 1:1 magnification is extended.
Yes, when using a teleconverter for macro photography the only downside that I can see is the darker image in the view finder.
Frank
' />
' />)