 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006The new 105mm micro-Nikkor
Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much this gem is going to cost? > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > this gem is going to cost? $800, supposedly.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > > this gem is going to cost? > > $800, supposedly. That seems reasonable. Since it will be released in April, I wonder when I will actually be able to buy one? :-) >>> Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much >>> this gem is going to cost? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That seems reasonable. Since it will be released in April, I wonder > when I will actually be able to buy one? :-) Well, it's Nikon, so, probably sometime in November. :) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > >>> Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > >>> this gem is going to cost? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, it's Nikon, so, probably sometime in November. :) Works for me. I won't be getting back to the US of A until then anyway. > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > this gem is going to cost? I don't see the point at 1:1 you should be on a tripod as DOF is pretty shallow. > > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > > this gem is going to cost? > > > I don't see the point at 1:1 you should be on a tripod as DOF is pretty > shallow. Bugs don't take directing all that well. And you like to have all the shutter time you can if you have the aperture at 32 or so to get a reasonable DOF. Ob course it won't prevent subject motion blur, but sometimes the critters atcually take it easy for half a second or so. Jan Böhme > > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > > this gem is going to cost? > > > I don't see the point at 1:1 you should be on a tripod as DOF is pretty > shallow. Bugs don't take directing all that well. And you like to have all the shutter time you can if you have the aperture at 32 or so to get a reasonable DOF. Ob course it won't prevent subject motion blur, but sometimes the critters atcually take it easy for half a second or so. **************************************************************************** ***** put bug in refrigerator for about 15 or 20 minutes, place where you want it, you have about 5 to 10 minutes before it warms up again... > > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > > this gem is going to cost? > > > I don't see the point at 1:1 you should be on a tripod as DOF is pretty > shallow. I often photograph eye surgery, been using a Medical Nikkor ( a 120mm macro with its own AC flash system). The OR put in new lights that over power the flash. So now I shoot at 1/160 at f16 or 22. VR would be nice. Also the Medical Nikkor is meant to be used with flash and isn't that controlable without flash (the fstops are controls by focus distance). I was going to buy a 105 anyway, this one ould make a lot of sense. One question, does the VR operate with an AF telextender, like the Nikon 1.4x. Tom > One question, does the VR operate with an AF telextender, like > the Nikon 1.4x. Yes VR works fine on the 70-200 VR with a teleconverter. It probably won't work with extension rings though. And you will need the special AF-S teleconverter (not regular AF). > > One question, does the VR operate with an AF telextender, like > > the Nikon 1.4x. > > Yes VR works fine on the 70-200 VR with a teleconverter. It probably > won't work with extension rings though. And you will need the special > AF-S teleconverter (not regular AF). Teleconverters are great in macro photography, they not only increase you focal length but also your magnification. Best example is the Nikon 200 micro, the original model they designed it to internally focus to 1:2 magnification. Instead of having massive extension tubes to get it to 1:1 they used a 2x teleconverter (TC301 which now sells for $600) This gave the lens a 1:1 capability but also made it a 400 (f8) at infinity. Great surgical photography lens because with the converter you are working at the same distance for a 1:1 mag shot as you were without the converter at 1:2. Tom >>>One question, does the VR operate with an AF telextender, like >>>the Nikon 1.4x. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Teleconverters are great in macro photography, they not only increase > you focal length but also your magnification. I've got a 2x AF-S converter so that would be awesome if it performed well with this new lens. Add my +2 diopter & it would be 4:1 (I think). I use that arrangement on the 70-200 but it has too many reflections so can make a pretty poor image sometimes, plus the bokeh goes bad & edge sharpness is screwed. This new macro has better anti-reflection coatings so that might work OK. > Best example is the Nikon > 200 micro, the original model they designed it to internally focus to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tom > I've got a 2x AF-S converter so that would be awesome if it performed > well with this new lens. Add my +2 diopter & it would be 4:1 (I > think). I use that arrangement on the 70-200 but it has too many > reflections so can make a pretty poor image sometimes, plus the bokeh > goes bad & edge sharpness is screwed. This new macro has better > anti-reflection coatings so that might work OK. Damn, we're thinking alike! I just shot a message out with the same thought about the same time you did. Rita > Teleconverters are great in macro photography, they not only increase > you focal length but also your magnification. Best example is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > converter you are working at the same distance for a 1:1 mag shot as > you were without the converter at 1:2. You gave me something to look forward to! I'm hoping that the new 105mm lens will work with the TC-20E II. Now that would be a great bonus since I already have one. Rita > You gave me something to look forward to! I'm hoping that the new 105mm > lens will work with the TC-20E II. Now that would be a great bonus since I > already have one. According to Nikon's specs it will work, but it won't autofocus. Though the lack of autofocus might be a bit pessimistic -- the aperture should be big enough at non-macro distances for AF to work, though not when close up. So they may just be saying that to cover themselves. They do say that VR will work, though. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> You gave me something to look forward to! I'm hoping that the new >> 105mm lens will work with the TC-20E II. Now that would be a great [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > though not when close up. So they may just be saying that to cover > themselves. They do say that VR will work, though. Interesting. That still sounds encouraging. Do you have a link to this article? From what I understand the problem with using a TC-20E II with lenses (short focal length) that aren't on Nikon's approved lens list is there will be damage to both the lens and the TC due to rear lens element hitting the TC's front element during focusing. I know if I tried to put my current 105mm f/2.8 AFD Micro Nikkor on the 2x TC there will be physical damage. If the rear element is recessed deep enough on the new 105mm I would say it would work fine. I'm guessing since the 105mm is such a short focal length the rear element isn't going to be recessed enough. Theoretically (my assumption) since it's a 2.8 the AF should work fine. Either way, I will definitely have to get the new 105.. Rita > Interesting. That still sounds encouraging. Do you have a link to this > article? Er, www.nikonusa.com, look at the specs for the lens. :) > From what I understand the problem with using a TC-20E II with lenses > (short focal length) that aren't on Nikon's approved lens list The point is, it *is* on their approved list. The lens specs specifically say that it is compatible. > Either way, I will definitely have to get the new 105.. Yeah, I'm thinking there may be one in my future as well. I was thinking about getting an older 105/4 macro, manual focus, since that seems an all- around better choice than the current AF 105 macro, but this one looks like it'll blow the doors off the others. And it'll double as a 105 with VR, which could be handy as well. I currently have the 60mm macro, which may at that point be redundant... SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Er, www.nikonusa.com, look at the specs for the lens. :) Got it! Thanks! I finally did see the TC-20E II listed in the Optional accessories section. This is great. I'm curious of where you found information that this lens wouldn't auto focus correctly with the 2x TC? I believe it was you that mentioned this? This is the part that concerns me. > The point is, it *is* on their approved list. The lens specs > specifically say that it is compatible. You just made my day! I'm excited. On a side note, I'm seriously contemplating getting the R1C1 Speedlight system. This will/should work great with this new lens. I haven't seen any reviews on how well this system works so I'm dragging my feet on this one. I did see one of the little flash modules at Ritz ($149 each) and it looks pretty nice. They don't have the whole kit at the stores to inspect. Spring is just around the corner and I want to be ready. Thanks for all your help. Rita > > Er, www.nikonusa.com, look at the specs for the lens. :) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > focus correctly with the 2x TC? I believe it was you that mentioned this? > This is the part that concerns me. It's right there in the same Optional Accessories section; it says Autofocus operation is not possible. My thought is that, since the teleconverter would make the maximum aperture f/5.6, that AF *could* work (though not as well) at non-macro distances, but when you get close up, the aperture would decrease and AF would no longer be possible. So they may be just saying it doesn't work so people don't complain when it only works sometimes, or something. > On a side note, I'm seriously contemplating getting the R1C1 Speedlight > system. This will/should work great with this new lens. I haven't seen any > reviews on how well this system works so I'm dragging my feet on this one. I think I'd rather go for a proper ring flash (which Nikon doesn't have, they just have that almost-one). On the other hand, I have *very* little experience with macro stuff, I just keep meaning to do more of it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > It's right there in the same Optional Accessories section; it says > Autofocus operation is not possible. I'll be damned! I looked at that twice and was so excited when I seen my TC listed I stopped at that point. Talk about selective reading. > My thought is that, since the teleconverter would make the maximum > aperture f/5.6, that AF *could* work (though not as well) at > non-macro distances, > but when you get close up, the aperture would decrease and AF would > no longer be possible. So they may be just saying it doesn't work so > people don't complain when it only works sometimes, or something. Now that sounds logical. I'll bet they probably found a way to turn it off via firmware in the lens's chip. > I think I'd rather go for a proper ring flash (which Nikon doesn't > have, they just have that almost-one). On the other hand, I have > *very* little experience with macro stuff, I just keep meaning to do > more of it. Ring flashes are great for clinical work, but give zero margins for creative lighting. I use a homemade contraption with my SB-800 and cheap slave flash so that I can change lighting angles. The R1C1 with two slaves should give the flexibility I want without all the extra weight and bulk. Rita > Ring flashes are great for clinical work, but give zero margins for > creative lighting. I use a homemade contraption with my SB-800 and cheap slave > flash so that I can change lighting angles. The R1C1 with two slaves should give > the flexibility I want without all the extra weight and bulk. Heh, I was just looking at that... says you can put 8 of those little remote flashes on the lens ring & more scattered around on flexible clamps & clipped to branches & stuff LOL! I could see how two set sort of close together might be nice. I've been avoiding anything to do with flash though so that's probably one gizmo I'll resist. > Heh, I was just looking at that... says you can put 8 of those little > remote flashes on the lens ring & more scattered around on flexible > clamps & clipped to branches & stuff LOL! I could see how two set sort > of close together might be nice. I've been avoiding anything to do > with flash though so that's probably one gizmo I'll resist. Yes, there was a post here a while back that showed someone with eight of them hung off their lens. Looks kind of weird, but with that many it is probably just an expensive and overpowered ring flash. I can see using two of them for creative shadowing and in remote situations a third. I don't have anything against macro using flash. It's just a pain in the butt to get it set up right, especially if your subject is on the move. I'm wondering if these modules can be controlled from an SB-800? The R1 is the same kit without the SU800 and is cheaper. The D200 and D70(s) will control these with the built in flash, but D2x needs the SU800 or hoping just an SB800. Rita >My thought is that, since the teleconverter would make the maximum aperture >f/5.6, that AF *could* work (though not as well) at non-macro distances, >but when you get close up, the aperture would decrease and AF would no longer >be possible. So they may be just saying it doesn't work so people don't >complain when it only works sometimes, or something. I don't follow this reasoning. It's an f/2.8 lens, just like my 70-20 VR f/2.8 which works ok at all apertures with a TC-20EII attached. It's not the actual aperture used it's the max possible that affects AF, no? SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote: > I don't follow this reasoning. It's an f/2.8 lens, just like my 70-20 VR > f/2.8 which works ok at all apertures with a TC-20EII attached. It's not > the actual aperture used it's the max possible that affects AF, no? Yes. Nikon is saying AF won't work. But the max aperture with a 2x converter will be f/5.6, which should allow AF to work. However, as you focus in to macro distances the max aperture will decrease further, which will prevent AF from working -- a situation that the 70-200 does not have to face, which is the difference. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Nikon is saying AF won't work. But the max aperture with a 2x > converter will be f/5.6, which should allow AF to work. However, as > you focus in to macro distances the max aperture will decrease > further, which will prevent AF from working -- a situation that the > 70-200 does not have to face, which is the difference. Yep! I just put the 105 on and at its closest focus it is f/5. You are right since aperture decrease gradually from f/2.8 up to f/5 as you focus in. If Nikon didn't firmware cripple the lens I would bet your assumption of it working sporadically would be correct. Then again, at the magnification and shallow DOF with the 2X TC auto focus might not be something you want. This issue isn't going to be changing my decision in getting one. If I like the new 105 I'll throw the one I have now on eBay. Rita >> Nikon is saying AF won't work. But the max aperture with a 2x >> converter will be f/5.6, which should allow AF to work. However, as [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rita If you attach an AF-S lens to a TC14, 17, 20E I cannot find electronically or mechanically how the lens would know it is attached to the TC and not directly to the camera. Therefore, how would the lens' firmware know to prevent AF? I think Jeremy's comments are right on. Probably not a lot of AF happening at f32 or so in any case!! Bob > If you attach an AF-S lens to a TC14, 17, 20E I cannot find > electronically or mechanically how the lens would know it is attached > to the TC and not directly to the camera. Therefore, how would the > lens' firmware know to prevent AF? I think Jeremy's comments are > right on. Probably not a lot of AF happening at f32 or so in any > case!! Trust me, it knows. When I use my TC-20E II with my 70-200mm VR lens it shows in the EXIF that I'm using the 70-200mm VR at double whatever focal length I have it set at. So, if I set the lens at 200mm it shows as 400mm in the EXIF. Plus the AF will never see f/32 since it relies on wide-open aperture, which is f/2.8-f/5 in this case. Jeremy's point is the wide-open aperture varies to f/5 at close focus and will give you f/10 with a 2x TC. These cameras are smarter than we give them credit for. Rita >> If you attach an AF-S lens to a TC14, 17, 20E I cannot find >> electronically or mechanically how the lens would know it is attached [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Rita Exactly my point that at f16+TC20E (standard if you want any DOF at all) you would have an f32 taking aperture. Even the viewing (and focusing) aperture of f5.6 would probably be iffy (depending on subject matter). Bring your reproduction ratio up to 1:1 and it would get worse, as you mentioned in your previous post. Bob > Jeremy's point is the wide-open > aperture varies to f/5 at close focus and will give you f/10 with a 2x TC. > These cameras are smarter than we give them credit for. Yes, and autofocus at minimal distance with a 2x teleconverter is probably past praying for. But how about a 1,4x? Sure, then you get a wide-open aperture of 7, which is smaller than 5.6, and thus the camera won't autofocus - if it knows it. But if it doesn't? The Sigma 170-500 mm is reported to autofocus reasonably well att 500mm, although its wide-open aqperture out there is 6.3 - only the lens cheats, and tricks the camera into believing that the aperture is 5.6. And at least on an EOS 20D, you are supposed to get acceptable autofocus´, if you use a third-party telekonverter that doesn't communicate its presence to the camera, with the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens, also at full zoom - although the actual wide open aperture out there is 8, a full stop smaller than 5.6. And if Canon 20D can do it at f8, why shouldn't at least Nikon D200 be able to do it at f7? Jan Böhme >>Jeremy's point is the wide-open >>aperture varies to f/5 at close focus and will give you f/10 with a 2x TC. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And if Canon 20D can do it at f8, why shouldn't at least Nikon D200 be > able to do it at f7? The higher end cameras can AF 'legally' at something like f/8 I think. >>> Jeremy's point is the wide-open >>> aperture varies to f/5 at close focus and will give you f/10 with a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > The higher end cameras can AF 'legally' at something like f/8 I think. I just checked, it seems to be an f/5.6 limit on the D200. I don't recall which but some pro cameras have higher. Paul Furman skrev: > > And at least on an EOS 20D, you are supposed to get acceptable > > autofocus´, if you use a third-party telekonverter that doesn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The higher end cameras can AF 'legally' at something like f/8 I think. The only cameras "legally" to AF at f8 that I know of are the different Canon 1D varieties. I was convinced that Nikon D2x also did so, but I was informed in a Nikon forum at dpreview.com that this is actually not the case. The "legal" limit for Canon 20D is definitely 5.6. But there is lots of talk about how you beat this with cheap third-party converters, or even by taping some connector pins on the Canon ones or some similar tricks, on the Canon SLR lens forum at dpreview.com. Obviously, the actual capacity to autofocus at f8 is enough for people to bother taping teleconverter pins to get a focal length of 560 mm out of the 100-400 mm. Jan Böhme Paul Furman skrev: > Jan Böhme wrote: > > And at least on an EOS 20D, you are supposed to get acceptable > > autofocus´, if you use a third-party telekonverter that doesn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The higher end cameras can AF 'legally' at something like f/8 I think. The only cameras "legally" to AF at f8 that I know of are the different Canon 1D varieties. I was convinced that Nikon D2x also did so, but I was informed in a Nikon forum at dpreview.com that this is actually not the case. The "legal" limit for Canon 20D is definitely 5.6. But there is lots of talk about how you beat this with cheap third-party converters, or even by taping some connector pins on the Canon ones or some similar tricks, on the Canon SLR lens forum at dpreview.com. Obviously, the actual capacity to autofocus at f8 is enough for people to bother taping teleconverter pins to get a focal length of 560 mm out of the 100-400 mm. Jan Böhme Again, more "forum experts" as opposed to actual users, I guess!! I have, and use regularly, a Nikkor 300mm f4 AF-S and a TC-20E Nikon teleconverter combination which autofocusses quite nicely, thank you. I think you'll find that is an overall effective f8 combination. This is with a Nikon D2 series. I have occasionally used the same combo on an F5 as well. I have not used it in low light, however and would realistically expect some misfires in that low contrast kind of use. Bob >Nikon is saying AF won't work. But the max aperture with a 2x converter >will be f/5.6, which should allow AF to work. However, as you focus in >to macro distances the max aperture will decrease further, which will >prevent AF from working -- a situation that the 70-200 does not have to >face, which is the difference. Then why is it called a f/2.8 lens? This is what I'm not getting. For instance the D70 kit lens is an f/3.5-4.5 throughout its range and denoted as such. Why the difference here? The max aperture IS changing why not denote it? SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:22:06 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems > Jeremy [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as such. Why the difference here? The max aperture IS changing why not > denote it? My 200 f4 AF Micro Nikkor does the same trick. As you dial the reproduction ratio up towards 1:1, the max aperture changes to smaller values the closer you get to the life-sized close focus setting (at which point the focus helicoid runs out of travel). This is the only macro lens I have ever needed, so I am assuming this is normal operation. Bob >>On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:22:06 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems >>Jeremy [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > helicoid runs out of travel). This is the only macro lens I have ever > needed, so I am assuming this is normal operation. Also kind of surprising to me but I guess f/2.8 would be pretty worthless at 1:1 anyways. You'd have George Washington's nose out of focus shooting a coin dead on LOL. Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > Then why is it called a f/2.8 lens? This is what I'm not getting. For > instance the D70 kit lens is an f/3.5-4.5 throughout its range and > denoted as such. Why the difference here? The max aperture IS > changing why not denote it? This might be a dumb answer since I'm only guessing. The 105mm is a fixed focal length and the kit lens is a zoom. I'm sure there is a better answer, but I haven't figured out what it is. Rita Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote: > Then why is it called a f/2.8 lens? This is what I'm not getting. For > instance the D70 kit lens is an f/3.5-4.5 throughout its range and denoted > as such. Why the difference here? The max aperture IS changing why not > denote it? It's normal for a macro lens. I don't know enough about the technical lens design stuff to say whether it's necessary, but the thing is that the lens's focal length changes as you focus closer -- it happens with regular lenses too, just not enough to matter. With a macro you're focusing so close that the focal length change actually makes a big difference in the resulting aperture. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > the lens's focal length changes as you focus closer -- it happens with > regular lenses too, just not enough to matter. That makes sense. Things grow & shrink (zoom) as you focus. It's plenty noticeable even at normal focal lengths. >Then why is it called a f/2.8 lens? This is what I'm not getting. For >instance the D70 kit lens is an f/3.5-4.5 throughout its range and denoted >as such. Why the difference here? The max aperture IS changing why not >denote it? For any 'simple' lens, where all the lens elements move together as you focus, the aperture becomes smaller as you focus on closer subjects. The specified aperture (and field of view) refers to the case where the focus is set to infinity. Because this is a basic property of 'normal' lenses, there no need to specify this effect. Some lenses are different. In the past, Nikon made a 55/3.5 with a compensating aperture. As you focus closer, the aperture opens up. Of course, the only works if the lens is attached directly to the camera. It doesn't work with 'modern' TTL light metering systems. Some lenses change the focal length as you focus. This reduces (or eliminates) the effect on aperture and field of view. However, the working distance is typically reduced as well. If you put such lens on a tube or bellows, you will see an effect on aperture (and field of view). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Granted, you want to use a tripod to ensure that DOF is exactly where you want it, but the VR might make handheld shots of bugs a little easier. Sort of shooting the fly on the fly, so to speak. I don't know, but who knows what you can do until you experiment with it? The other thing that makes VR less useful on a macro lens is that you almost always have to use flash anyway just to keep the shadows from being too dark. But you never know. I could see it in the cornfield on a bright sunny day. VR ?????? Signaturehttp://photobucket.com/albums/b216/corks67/my-bikes/ > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > this gem is going to cost? > VR ?????? Vibration Reduction, since Image Stabilization was already taken and trademarked by a competing company. :-) > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > this gem is going to cost? It just occured to me as I was discussing this lens with Rita elsewhere on the NG that the addition of the VR compromises the optical design by adding an optical element. So while it's a great advantage for the handheld macro shooter, it's a disadvantage for the plodding tripod macro shooter. He will have VR turned off. Macro is a world where high MTF crisp detail is one of the delights in the final image. Had Nikon just changed the optics along with the nano-crystal coating, that would have distinguished the lens. Whatever gain they got from that, they've likely lost with the VR lens element. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > > this gem is going to cost? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that would have distinguished the lens. Whatever gain they got from > that, they've likely lost with the VR lens element. That is possible, although an additional lens element does not necessarily degrade quality. It is usually done to improve quality. I think more to the point is that Nikon itself says that VR works best at distances of more than 10 feet. The improvement derived from VR begins to fall off closer than that. This makes a lot of sense, actually. Nikon obviously added the VR for use when the lens is not being used as a macro. >>>Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much >>>this gem is going to cost? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > actually. Nikon obviously added the VR for use when the lens is not > being used as a macro. This one is a new VRII, perhaps that's the difference? <http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/micro/af-s_vr_micro-nikkor_1 05mmf_28_if/index.htm> hmmm... no they say it's good from infinity to 3 meters... but then they show a closeup sample... I can confirm the old VR works fine with closeups although I'm sure not as well as a tripod. Here they say it's good for 'closeups' without being more specific: http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2160 >>>Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much >>>this gem is going to cost? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That is possible, although an additional lens element does not > necessarily degrade quality. It is usually done to improve quality. You can't add glass to do somthing like vibration reduction and retain optical quality. Pretty much every glass element in the chain contributes to resolution loss. Any additional element certainly contributes to resolution loss. Two otherwise identical lenses. One has IS, one does not. http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF3004LUSMIS.gif "IS" lens http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF3004LUSM.gif non-IS lens > I think more to the point is that Nikon itself says that VR works best > at distances of more than 10 feet. The improvement derived from VR > begins to fall off closer than that. This makes a lot of sense, > actually. Nikon obviously added the VR for use when the lens is not > being used as a macro. If that's true, then the "hand held" macro people are not gaining anything so using it on a tripod (VR off or on) means less optical quality than the previous 105 micro. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >>>Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much > >>>this gem is going to cost? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > anything so using it on a tripod (VR off or on) means less optical > quality than the previous 105 micro. We shall wait and see, I suppose. Perhaps grabbing one of the old 105mm lenses on clearance would be worthwhile, eh? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.