 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
novicius
|
Looking into getting one of these, but how does it perform at Infinity ?...want to use it for landscapes, has anyone used it on long distance ? |
|||||||||
jk
|
It is a very sharp lens. It works fine at infinity but I prefer the previous model without VR as it is less bulky. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Heya JK, but it is because of the VR that I am interested...the 70-200 f4.0 is a tad too bulky, hence my looking into this one, apart from that, is the AI-s a " better " sharper with nicer " bokeh " lens ? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Bokeh is something that changes with conditions. The lens barrel is much larger and the lens is more bulky. I bought it as it was AFS and so worked on my Z7 with FTZ adapter and D850. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Yes, it is a Big un` , especially with its sunshade, and what a huge afair that one is ,a bit odd , considering that Nikon is notorious for supplying short shades as Nikon consideres their lenses to be " Flareless " ..If I get it then a 3rd party sunhade will be mounted,so ,how Flare resistent would you say is the Micro 105 then ?...could I get away with a short shade ?...you know, a Wide angle shade for instance ,..and how is Infinity compared to say,your 50 f1.2 ? |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
You might want to read Birna's review here - http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html |
|||||||||
jk
|
These old reviews of the Nikon lenses by Birna are very useful references. I think that we seem to be at a point where the new mirrorless cameras demand a revision of the old lenses designs or completely new designs to allow for the very small distance between body flange and sensor. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Does the FTZ adapter not deal with that - I can't see Nikon revising old designs to work with the new cameras, surely that is the job of the new Z lenses? |
|||||||||
jk
|
chrisbet wrote:Does the FTZ adapter not deal with that - I can't see Nikon revising old designs to work with the new cameras, surely that is the job of the new Z lenses?The FTZ adapter doesnt work too well with the AFD and AF lenses as there are functions missing compared to the AFS and Z mount S line lenses. Nikon say the newer lenses are better. I dont test in a lab but I dont see any big differences that forces me to change/upgrade to new versions. The new S line 100-400mm for the Z mount cameras is a temptation for me if I stay with Nikon into the future and I would like to refresh the 70-200mm f2.8 with the new S line camera. I have a Z7 that I really like but the Z9 doesnt fill me with joy due to its size but the specification is good. The rumours of the Z8 are much closer to what I would want. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I was hoping for a comparison between the Micro 105 and the 50 f1.2 as I have the 55 f1.2 which is for all practical purposes of intent similar to the 50f1.2,that would tell me more than a review standing on its own,..but thanks anyway. |
|||||||||
jk
|
If you want that comparison I think you are making for a difficult comparison. These lenses are optimised for different conditions. The 50mm f1.2 is designed for low light use whilst the 105mm f2.5 macro is designed for ultimate sharpness at a f8-f16 aperture. That said it is no slouch at f2.5 |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I dropped that 105 f2.8 macro,as I have the PC-E 85 f2.8 and the 135 f2.0,..instead I opted for the 24-70 f2.8 VR...I knew it was n`t a small lens,but it is Bigger and Heavier than I thought, but as they say " it is a sweet weight to carry " . |
|||||||||
jk
|
Yes the 24-70mm f2.8 is a good lens to have but it is very long and a little heavy especially when you compare it with the new Z mount version which is only f4 but it is light and small. I havent done a comparison between the f2.8 and the f4 version on my Z7 but I expect the newer f4 version will be equally good if you use the lens at f4 or smaller apertures. I frequently use my lenses wide open as the old saying about lenses being soft wide open may have been true for lenses in the past but isnt the case now. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
novicius wrote:I dropped that 105 f2.8 macro,as I have the PC-E 85 f2.8 and the 135 f2.0,..instead I opted for the 24-70 f2.8 VR...I knew it was n`t a small lens,but it is Bigger and Heavier than I thought, but as they say " it is a sweet weight to carry " .The 24-70 (non VR) was almost permanently fixed to my D3 back in my commercial days. It was heavy but beautifully balanced with the D3. While photographing a leisure centre back in the day I was taking shots in the gymnasium, saunas, sun rooms etc while waiting for them to ‘clear the pool’ as a I wanted a still water image. It took the guy ages to get all the overweight blobs out of the pool then had to wait for the tsunamis to subside. I was 3 floors up by then when I got the call to “come now”. Racing down the concrete stairwell with D3/24-70 lodged precariously in my bag, I took a corner too quickly and the whole combo went airborne smashing onto the floor. The lens mount stayed on the D3 (which was unaffected) but the lens rear burst into 5 or 6 parts. I said bother or several similar words…loudly.  I had to go to the car to get my D300 with basic lens attached. By the time I got back, some fat git had jumped in the pool and it was like an Atlantic storm. I called it quits on the job, saying I would return on another day for the pool. On my way home I dropped into ACS at Watton. When David had stopped laughing about my story we went into his workshop, where he reassembled all the bits (no replacements required), tested the lens and camera….shoved it tightly into my bag and told me to ‘go away’. No charge…he thought the picture of me running up and down stairs between exercise areas an amusing enough reward. The lens was actually sharper/smoother after he reassembled it. They are quality lenses built to last and take abuse. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
jk wrote:Yes the 24-70mm f2.8 is a good lens to have but it is very long and a little heavy especially when you compare it with the new Z mount version which is only f4 but it is light and small.According to Nasim Mansurov from PhotographyLife the 24-70 VR is not as sharp in center as its predecessor but has Improved image quality across the focal plane , which is according to the old ZEISS-Leitz-Nikon philosophy which suits me fine,furthermore it should have outstanding Infinity quality which I am after , have not " tested " mine yet apart from its VR , which is Superb , so I am rather pleased. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Eric wrote:The 24-70 (non VR) was almost permanently fixed to my D3 back in my commercial days. It was heavy but beautifully balanced with the D3.That`s a Tale of WOE if I ever heard one, I will try not to follow your example,.. I am trying to find a way to carry/wear this lens, I have the lowePro photo vest which has " D " rings to harness the rig, which makes my appearance rather obvious ,so need to find another way so as to look inconspicous ,..but my Nat.Geo. canvass bag is too small, so I am still investigating alternative methods. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
novicius wrote:That`s a Tale of WOE if I ever heard one, I will try not to follow your example,.. I am trying to find a way to carry/wear this lens, I have the lowePro photo vest which has " D " rings to harness the rig, which makes my appearance rather obvious ,so need to find another way so as to look inconspicous ,..but my Nat.Geo. canvass bag is too small, so I am still investigating alternative methods.Camera bags are a nightmare. I think I have had more camera bags than cameras! I prefer to work with minimal equipment. So one camera and one lens is my starting point. That said I always want quick access to the camera. So a toploader holster type is my preferred style for walking around….irrespective of the lens length…….  Nikon 500mm+D850 in Thinktank holster …..out birding For more general photography I still favour a holster but a more modest size….  This Lowepro takes the Sony with 100-400 zoom….or shorter lens with option to even put a 2nd compact lens underneath at the bottom. Alternatively, if the full holster is occupied, I can also add an external pouch for the second lens. The pouch is quickly strapped/ velcroed to the side of the holster.  There are ample pockets for card, batteries, filters, but I find if I have too much clutter, excess weight and equipment choice it distracts me. And NO….the camera / lens that got thrown out of my bag WASNT a holster. It was me using a standard shoulder bag open with the combo ‘wedged’ inside. In fact the incident was instrumental in me adopting holsters of good depth. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |