| 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 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bob
|
Preferrably without damage or dust/fungus |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Seems quite a rare lens - London Camera Exchange have a couple in stock around the £280 mark. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
I have seen a few, but the sellers' comments all mention "dust inside the lens but it won't affect the images etc etc" . I won't know if this this true until I've bought one. I usually buy on ebay, which has a good returns policy. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I often buy lenses with faults and then repair/clean them and move them on unless it is a lens I want - but I steer well clear of the later lenses with VR and plastic bodies - they can be a total nightmare even just to clean - if there are issues with the VR or AF then they have to be seriously cheap to even consider for body parts! I started off by making a few pounds on each, reinvested until I could afford the serious glass I wanted - I now have a dozen or so professional level lenses including brand new lenses for the Sony FS5 - the Nikons are mostly AF D as I prefer the aperture on the lens rather than the G series. London Camera Exchange, Wex and MPB are all good sources with good returns policies. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I often buy lenses with faults and then repair/clean them and move them on unless it is a lens I want - but I steer well clear of the later lenses with VR and plastic bodies - they can be a total nightmare even just to clean - if there are issues with the VR or AF then they have to be seriously cheap to even consider for body parts! I’ve bought and returned preowned lenses to WEX with no issue….they even arrange the return pick up. I don’t know about the other companies but WEX will give you the same price for a Cash transaction as they do for PX….so you don’t HAVE to buy something from them when you sell an item to them. It enables you to buy elsewhere if it’s cheaper than WEX price as they don’t seem to enter into price matching that much. Something I’ve taken advantage of several times. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I used to love my Nikon 60mm f2.8 Macro. Compact, light, with a protected deep set front lens and it worked perfectly for normal photography as an alternative to carrying about a 50mm lens. I tried the newer 105mm macro with image stabilisation….only to discover IS doesn’t work on subjects closer than 8”. Which is a bit of a howler for a macro lens! That went back to WEX. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
Eric wrote:I used to love my Nikon 60mm f2.8 Macro. Aargh - I've just bought a AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Macro Lens from Park Cameras. I haven't received it yet. How would you know that was the case unless it's in the lens manual, without finding out the hard way. I almost bought the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 VC USD instead. I will e-mail them tonight and ask the question. And I've sent the Sigma 70-200 back to upg24 - just within the 30 day return expiry date  ........so I am currently lensless! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Bob wrote:Aargh - I've just bought a AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Macro Lens from Park Cameras. I haven't received it yet. How would you know that was the case unless it's in the lens manual, without finding out the hard way. The 105mm is a lovely lens and optically, sharp as a tack.....and it may do exactly what you want. It was just that Nikon themselves said VR wasn't as 'surefooted' the closer you get to the subject. In fairness I didn't test its performance that close. I just felt a bit duped by Nikon... as if they only added VR because of the lens weight. And it may well be a perfectly acceptable addition when feet away from the subject. The lens was chunkier than I expected and having paid extra for VR, when my non VR 60mm worked perfectly without it ( being compact and lightweight), I ended up returning it. Hopefully it will work for you. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Found this on the net… Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
Eric wrote:The 105mm is a lovely lens and optically, sharp as a tack.....and it may do exactly what you want. So far, I am more than impressed. I'm still waiting for my -2.0 correction lens for the viewfinder, so I will wait until I have tried that until I comment further. I have also downloaded the Nikon handbook for the lens, and edited out the non-Engish bits which makes it alot smaller  I don't know if you have tried the Tamron 90mm SP with all the buzzers and bells. The IS is supposed to work through the whole range. I mentioned to Park Cameras that I might want to swap the Nikkor for the Tamron, but I may buy the Tamron and do a back to back "evaluation" and return whichever lens fails the Tests. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
chrisbet wrote:Seems quite a rare lens - London Camera Exchange have a couple in stock around the £280 mark. I bought one from Park Cameras - it cost me £294 incl p&p. It's in lovely condition, and when I get my viewfinder correction lens I will be able comment further. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Bob wrote:So far, I am more than impressed. I'm still waiting for my -2.0 correction lens for the viewfinder, so I will wait until I have tried that until I comment further. I have also downloaded the Nikon handbook for the lens, and edited out the non-Engish bits which makes it alot smaller Lenses and cameras ….they all have quirks. We just have to decide if we can live with them. Optically there was nothing wrong with my 105. I just felt a bit let down by the fall off in VR functionality (even though the likelihood was I would never use it that close). It was a bit like buying car not getting the claimed mpg. I then noticed it was heavier and fatter than my 60mm, not as versatile as the 60mm which doubled as an 50mm…..and I suppose the 105 just didn’t survive the honeymoon…me being a grumpy groom. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
This shot was taken with the Canon PowershotSX179 IS Click here to comment on this image. Click here to comment on this image. This was taken with the D600 and 105mm AF-S 1:2.8G ED VR from the same position, about 12m away  Click here to comment on this image. D600 and AFS 105mm 1:2.8G ED VR  Click here to comment on this image. Powershot SX179 IS  Click here to comment on this image. D600 AF-S 105 1:2.8G ED VR  Click here to comment on this image. I am somewhat confused by this lens. Focused at infinity, it is very difficult to get a truly sharp image. I must however concentrate more on positioning the single focus point and keeping it on target while I squeeze the trigger. Nevertheless, there seemed to be colour fringes around the flowers under the bird feeder taken with the D600 - chromatic aberration? On the other hand I am almost pleased with the dragonfly shot. The pigeons taken by the Powershot are in colour, while the D600's have been edited to monochrome. Our resident lovebirds are at it every evening  I find it difficult to believe that the camera might be faulty - it has a repair to the beak over the lens where it has connected with something hard. The flash unit has probably been replaced, and the viewfinder lens is not fully central in the moulding -only fractionally. There is dust in the lens next to the mount - is this indicative of wear? all those moving parts :( |
|||||||||
jk
|
In my experience and I have that same model of lens and the earlier version (without VR and AFS) both work really well and are very sharp. I never used the VR version on my D600 as I had a D850 as well. I sold my D600 and D800 when I got my Z9. It could be that the D600 + 105mm need to be calibrated (one of the issues with DSLRs that mirrorless does not suffer from). |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Bob wrote:This shot was taken with the Canon PowershotSX179 IS Bob I am a little confused myself. According to the exif for each of those images, there are significant setting variations between the images. For ALL the D600 images the exposure compensation is -0.7……why? The Canon shots have exposure compensations of 0 for the feeder image and -1.1 for the pigeon image….again why? The full numbers comparison…… The D600 feeder image settings are : 1/320th @ f16 and iso 2000 exp comp -0.7 The Canon feeder image settings are : 1/25th @ f8 and iso 100 exp comp 0 The D600 pigeon image settings are : 1/1000th @ f8 and iso 640 exp comp -0.7 The Canon pigeon image settings are : 1/500th @ f5.9 and iso 100 exp comp -1.1 I don’t understand why these settings vary so much, if you want a fair comparison? I haven’t worked out a basic “stops variation” but the number of stops differences between these images looking at these figures would seem to me to be significant. Leaving aside the lens performance, if the camera sensors are working with widely different settings, that alone could account for drop off in IQ. It could certainly muddy the water. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I note you took the bird feeder image at f16 and ISO 2000. In Photographylive's review of the lens they note a loss of sharpness at f16 due to diffraction - https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-vr-105mm-f2-8g-macro-lens/2 It would be interesting to see the same image taken at f5.6 1/125 and ISO 100 - an equivalent EV. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
Thanks Chris I have had a look at the link - it has jogged some of the grey matter which remains and is very informative. It's a step beyond Michael Langford's film photography books which I still have. Eric: I agree it's not a fair comparison, and at the moment I am not fully up to speed with the ISO function. I have been concentrating on image sharpness, and altering the ISO settings to get what looks like the right exposure. I will address this more thoroughly, While I was looking at these shots in NX Studio, I was able to view the exact location of the focusing point at the moment the shot was taken. I discovered that the focusing point was not where I thought it had been especially with the bird feeder. So there is an issue of technique. Apart from the ISO settings in the dragonfly shot, and bearing in mind Chris's suggestions, your comments would be appreciated. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Bob wrote:Thanks Chris I have had a look at the link - it has jogged some of the grey matter which remains and is very informative. It's a step beyond Michael Langford's film photography books which I still have. It can be a nightmare evaluating BOTH a new camera and lens at the same time…got several Tee shirts. I would say your issue is not locking down the camera to default settings to give it a fair chance of delivering what you want. The settings you choose will have more impact on the lens performance than you might expect. Chris is always right….I wouldn’t dare disagree with him.  All lenses have a ‘zone’ of maximum sharpness. Typically they are sharpest from 1stop down from maximum (in the case of your f2.8 lens that would be f5.6) to 3 stops down (that’s f11 for yours). Now the apparent sharpness doesn’t drop off a cliff…so f16 and f22 are still usable but rarely as sharp as f5.6-f11. The very best lenses may give you a wider zone of sharpness and probably a better performance wide open at the maximum aperture. (In my experience these are usually the lenses with f1.8 or f1.4 max apertures) So keeping in the f5.6 to f11 zone would be my starting point to test a lens….after all it’s the most likely range you will need to use the lens in UK lighting anyway. I would also say, if the lens doesn’t deliver at f8 it won’t get any better at any other settings. Having fixed your aperture for the test using Aperture Priority you need to set a sensible iso for the lighting. In film days you never considered 400 or 800 ASA on sunny days…..more likely 100 or less! In digital terms, for your camera, I would apply the same logic….but slightly higher numbers to film. Sunny day 400 or less! …..Dull days 1000 but ideally below 2000!…..Dark miserable days ………go to the pub! OK a bit of a joke but actually ….NOT. If the weather/lighting push you and your camera out of there comfort zones, you are unlikely to ever be happy with the results, which makes the exercise pointless. Once you have set the aperture and iso the camera will dictate the required shutters speed, provided the selected metering mode is suitable for the use (ie matrix as opposed to spot metering) and no other settings are interfering. Of course if the lighting is poor and you can’t wait for the sun, you need to be mindful of slow shutters speeds introducing camera movement. Even with VR when hand holding I still prefer to use the inverse law ….shutter speed = 1/focal length As previously mentioned, it seems on your images, the D600 was set (I am guessing inadvertently) to -0.7 exp comp which will mess with your setting choice. Nikons exposure is usually very good and for general photography like the bird feeder and dragonfly it needs to be set at 0. The pigeons on the wire being backlit +1.0 (could be +1.5) exp comp. Hope that helps. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Lol, Eric - it has been known ... I use (as does JK , I think) -0.7 comp when shooting in Italy / Spain but certainly not in even sunny UK! Another point that occurs to me is the DOF - it may be worth taking some shots of say grass or something that shows clearly the in focus range of your settings. It is possible that the camera focus is actually in front of or behind the focus point set on the lens. In the image below you can see the dof clearly on the sand in front of and behind the horse's hooves. - right click on the image to open in a new tab and then left click on the image to zoom in. The white specks are flying sand particles! This was taken with my D90 with single point focussing on the horse's chest - see how the dof is actually mostly behind the focus chosen by the camera.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Bob…one thing I would say about that 105macro lens. Although it’s suppose to perform as a general lens as well as a macro, I never felt comfortable using it in that way. Your comment about not getting sharpness at infinity reminded me that I too felt the lens didn’t deliver in that situation. I found I was shifting to other lenses covering 100mm for my “peace of mind”. It did perform well as a macro lens, allowing some distance between skitty bugs this was even using f16!!!…..  Click here to comment on this image. But then again this was with a 200-600mm zoom + 1.4teleconverter = 840mm handheld (too lazy to change lense)….  Click here to comment on this image. And this was one the wife took with her Panasonic bridge camera!!  Click here to comment on this image. And then recently with my Fuji….  Click here to comment on this image. So you have to question whether you NEED a dedicated macro lens ….thats why I don’t have one any more! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Lol, Eric - it has been known ... Agreed when you are photographing in the intense light of mainland Europe compared to the high humidity of the British ISLES. Also when photographing light subjects it’s best to drop exp comp into the minus region to guarantee holding onto highlight detail. But as a general rule Nikons don’t need anything more than +/- 0.3 to protect detail. The Fuji gives me a warning not to mess with IT’S choice. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Lol - like the Jag that messages me to say "top up the washer fluid!" |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Nice sharp lens but not between Macro to mid-range normal photography. We are in Dublin now, came over on ferry this morning. We will be in Ireland till month end will try and post some photos if suitable. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:Nice sharp lens but not between Macro to mid-range normal photography. We are in Dublin now, came over on ferry this morning. We will be in Ireland till month end will try and post some photos if suitable. That was my experience. I said earlier that I felt cheated by Nikon as it was billed as performing just as well beyond macro. It didnt …….unlike my 60mm macro that worked perfectly beyond macro. Enjoy the Emerald Isle. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
chrisbet wrote:I note you took the bird feeder image at f16 and ISO 2000. I took some shots of the dreaded bird feeder with 0EV, f5.6 and f6.3. I have put these on the Splash list to enable you to see the EXIF data. The first one is f6.3 1/100 and the second is f5.6 1/125. They are both ISO 100 Click here to comment on this image. 1 Click here to comment on this image. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
This is the f5.6 1/125 image Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Exposure looks there or thereabouts on both those, Bob Can I suggest you take a series of increasingly closer shots of the bird feeder. This time try 200iso @ f5.6 ……focus on the feeder and take shots at (say) 1foot, 3foot, 20feet away. It should give you a better assessment of the sharpness of the lens over distance |
|||||||||
Bob
|
Eric wrote:Exposure looks there or thereabouts on both those, Bob Wilco - why didn't I think of that - don't answer that  Meanwhile here's another bee. -albeit with 0.7Ev comp. and not cropped or otherwise molested. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Bob
|
First is from 2ft Handheld: Click here to comment on this image. The second is 5ft away:  Click here to comment on this image. Next is 10ft:  Click here to comment on this image. 20ft  Click here to comment on this image. Same distance on monopod VR on  Click here to comment on this image. That's all folks! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Sharp image in the first of the set but the rest look soft. Do you have a brick wall that you can use as a test image against as that will show if the lens has an element that is off as it should be sharp across the whole frame. You need to make sure you are shooting at 90 degrees to the wall! |
|||||||||
Bob
|
jk wrote:Sharp image in the first of the set but the rest look soft. Exactly. Not many brick walls where I live. I'll have to go looking for one. I think the results of the tests speak for themselves. It's a good close-up and macro lens. Eric is right about the rest. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Modern editor
| 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 Thank you. |