According provided by lens Nikon N AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8G ED VR SWM IF Micro 1: 1 Nano Crystal Coat huge thanks to the reader of Radozhiva - Violetta Kompaniets.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro
Browse Navigation:
- In short
- History
- Main Specifications
- Enlightenment 'N' (Nano Crystal Coat)
- Assembly
- Aperture Features
- Stabilizer
- Focusing
- Image quality
- Sample Photos
- My personal experience with the lens
- Prices
- Results
- User Comments
- Add your review or question on the lens
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro on camera Nikon D3200... The lens is so "chubby" that the bottom of the small camera does not reach the ground.
In short
Nikon N AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8G ED VR SWM IF Micro 1: 1 Nano Crystal Coat (short name - Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro) - excellent lens, one of the best macro lenses in the Nikon Nikkor line. Also, this is one of the best Nikon Nikkor lenses I've ever shot.
Perhaps only the Nikon 200mm 1: 4D ED AF Micro Nikkor may in some cases be better than the Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR, but the latter has a number of useful modern technologies.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro
History
Below I have given evolutionary list of Nikon (Nippon) Nikkor macro lenses... Initially, I included lenses of the 135/4 class, which later evolved (or were replaced) to a shorter focal length of 105 mm. Unfortunately, 135mm macro lenses are no longer available.
- Nippon Kogaku Japan Nikkor-Q 1: 4 f = 13.5cm, a rangefinder lens that with the help of the NIPPON KOGAKU F BR1 can turn it into a macro lens for cameras with Nikon F mount. It has been produced since 1959. It is a very rare collection lens, considered the first Nikkor lens with a focal length of about 100 mm, which was used for macro -shooting.
- Nippon Kogaku Japan Nikkor-Q 1: 4 f = 135mm, updated previous version with a different spelling of the name.
- Nippon Kogaku Japan Nikkor-P 1: 4 f = 105mm, the first macro lens with a focal length of 105 mm. Developed in 1969, produced from 1970 to 1974. Actually, this lens is not a “lens” in the usual sense. It does not have a focusing mechanism and focusing distance scale. To work with the lens, it is imperative to use macro fur. Very few of these lenses have been produced.
- Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1: 4, the so-called K version (not AI, but with a new body design), the first “real” Nikon Nikkor macro lens with a similar focal length. To achieve 1: 1 magnification, an optional Nikon PN-1 Extension Ring had to be used. Produced from May 1975 to 1977.
- Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1: 4, AI version. Produced from 1977 to 1981, optically the same as the 'K' version. Maximum magnification ratio without macro rings - 1: 2.
- Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1: 4, AI-S version. Produced from September 1981 to March 1983, optically the same as the 'AI' version. Maximum magnification ratio without macro rings - 1: 2.
- Nikon UV-Nikkor 105mm 1: 4.5, AI-S version. The optics are made of special quartz glass. A unique lens that does not have a difference in focus position for the ordinary and ultraviolet (UV) spectrum. Produced since April 1985, the time for the termination of production is unknown. Maximum magnification without macro rings - 1: 2.
- Nikon Medical-Nikkor 120mm (M = 1/11) 1: 4, a rare macro lens intended for use in medicine. It was produced from 1981 to 1998.
- Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8, AI-S version. It was produced since March 1983, the end time of production is unknown. The first Nikkor 105 / 2.8 class macro lens. Maximum magnification without macro rings - 1: 2.
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8, the first autofocus version of such lenses, introduced in June 1990 and produced until 1993, was later developed to a 'D' version. This is the first Micro Nikkor lens that can focus at 1: 1 magnification without the need for additional accessories.
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8D (MKII), the second autofocus version, the optical design is exactly the same as the previous version. Added the ability to transmit the focus distance to the camera. You can see an overview of this lens. here.
- Nikon N AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8G ED VR SWM IF Micro 1: 1 Nano Crystal Coat, the version shown in this review. The lens is not at all like previous versions. It was introduced in February 2006. There are 3 sub-versions: 'Made in Japan' (2006-2009), 'Made in China' (2010->) and 'Made in China, for USA' (2010->).
As you can see, the hero of my review, Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro, has a large family tree. Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR is fundamentally different from all previous lenses, which can be seen even in its long name. Unlike all previous models, Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR uses fully internal focusing, optic nanocrystalline antireflection, a built-in ultrasonic focusing motor, a built-in image stabilizer, has no aperture control ring, has an M / A mode (constant access to the focus ring), uses ED elements, can use a bayonet type hood and weighs more than anyone else.
In fact, there are only two Nikon Nikkor autofocus "macro hundreds", they are Nikon 105mm f / 2.8G VR and Nikon 105mm f / 2.8D, and if you choose between them, then almost everything points in favor of the new Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro on Nikon D3200
Main technical characteristics of Nikon N AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8G ED VR SWM IF Micro 1: 1 Nano Crystal Coat:
| Review Instance Name | Nikon N AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8G ED VR SWM IF Micro1: 1 Nano Crystal Coat 22225050 |
| Basic properties |
|
| Front Filter Diameter | 62 mm, plastic thread for filters |
| Focal length | 105 mm, EGF for Nikon DX cameras is 157,5 mm |
| Zoom ratio | 1 x (this fix lens, it does not have a zoom). |
| Designed by | for digital cameras Nikon FX |
| Number of aperture blades | 9 rounded petals |
| Tags | a window with a focusing distance in meters and feet, as well as with magnification marks from 1:10 to 1: 1. There is a bayonet mount tag, a mounting and fixing tag for the hood. |
| Diaphragm | from F / 2.8 to F / 32 during focusing to infinity; from F / 4.8 to F / 57 during focusing on MDF. The lens does not have an aperture ring (G - lens type) |
| MDF (minimum focusing distance) | 0.314 m, maximum magnification ratio 1: 1 |
| The weight | 720/790 g. The weight of the lens depends on the year of manufacture. |
| Optical design | 14 elements in 12 groups. The circuit includes 1 low dispersion element (shown in yellow in the optical diagram). The presence of such elements is indicated on the case with the abbreviation 'ED'. Also, some elements have nanocrystalline coating. Unfortunately, the position of these elements / element is not indicated on the optical diagram. The image of the optical circuit is clickable. |
| Lens hood | Nikon HB-38 (included in the package) |
| Transportation | With a soft case CL-1020 (included in the delivery set) |
| Manufacturer country | MADE In China (At the same time, the first lenses were produced in Japan from 2006 to 2009) |
| Period | From February 22, 2006 to the present day (at least until the winter of 2016) |
| Instruction (multilingual) | Download |
| Price |
An interesting macro lens for Nikon DX cameras was introduced in October - Nikon DX AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm 1: 3.5G ED VR SWM IF Micro1: 1, whose optical design is very similar to the Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR, and is most likely a rework. The macro lens for Nikon DX is 20mm shorter, darker (F / 3.5 versus F / 2.8), without 'N'-coating and not included in the list of professional lenses.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro
Assembly
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR is made very high quality. The lens body is metallic, with a metal bayonet mount, but with a plastic thread for filters. Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR belongs to the professional line of Nikon Nikkor lenses and proudly wears a gold ring on its body.
The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR case has a characteristic rough surface, in the hands it feels like a very solid thing.
The bayonet side is rubber compressor, which protects the mount of the bayonet mount (but not the entire lens) from dust and moisture. In more detail the issue of security lenses Nikon Nikkor described here.
Important: From the moment the lens was announced until 2009, Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR lenses were manufactured in Japan, but from 2009 to the present day they have been made in China. The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR version from this review, unfortunately, is made in China. Usually, all Nikon Nikkor professional lenses are made in Japan.
Important: Depending on the year of manufacture, the Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR sub-versions have different weights. The maximum weight of the lens under-version is 790 grams, the minimum is 720 grams.
The body has a bayonet mount mark and a mark for quick installation and fixing of the hood. The lens uses a Nikon HB-38 plastic hood, which is fixed in special grooves located near the front lens of the lens. The hood can be installed in the opposite direction for transportation. In this position, access to the focusing ring is completely lost (see photo of the lens).
The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR comes with a CL-1020 soft case, and the lens itself comes in a huge cardboard box with a characteristic Nikon paint job.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro, rear lens
Stabilizer
The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro is the only Micro-Nikkor FX macro lens (early 2016) to have built-in VR (Vibration Reduction) image stabilization. According to the instructions, the stabilizer can compensate 4 stops by shutter speed. In numerical terms, this means that you can shoot at shutter speeds 16 times longer than what a lens without a stabilizer requires.
The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro stabilization system applies to second generationwith 'VR' written on the lens barrel redcommon to the first Nikkor lenses with Image Stabilizer. Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro (February 2006) became the third prime lens with image stabilization among all Nikon Nikkor lenses, the first being Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm 1: 2.8G ED VR (September 2004) and Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm 1: 2G ED VR (July 2004). I want to note that the Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro appeared 3 years earlier than Canon Macro Lens EF 100mm 1: 2.8 L IS USM.
Please note that the instructions for the Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro lens indicate 4 stops of compensation (measured by Nikon and only during focusing from infinity to 1:30 magnification), and the official website 3 stops (measurements by CIPA).
To enable / disable the stabilizer on the lens there 'VR ON / OFF' switch. The lens can track the movement of the camera while shooting panoramas. Unlike some other lenses, the Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro does not have a stabilizer mode switch.
In practice, the effectiveness of the stabilizer drops dramatically as the focusing distance decreases. When working on an MDF (with a magnification ratio of 1: 1), the work of the stabilizer is felt many times worse than when focusing at infinity. The same drop in the efficiency of the stabilizer is observed with a similar lens in the legion of competitors - Canon Macro Lens EF 100mm 1: 2.8 L IS USM.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro on the camera Nikon D3200 with hood installed
Enlightenment 'N' (Nano Crystal Coat)
The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro boasts an 'N' letter on its body. 'N' stands for 'Nano Crystal Coat' - nanocrystalline optical coating. Such enlightenment allows you to cope well with glare and flare, and also creates excellent color reproduction. Most likely only one of the lenses (the latest, which is located on the bayonet side) has an 'N'-enlightenment. The rest of the lenses have a classic SIC enlightenment (Nikon Super Iintegrated Coating - special super integral enlightenment).
It is unfortunate that Nikon does not indicate the number of lenses in the optical circuit that have such enlightenment. I, like some other users, believe that the letter 'N' is put more for marketing.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro Lens Switches
Focusing
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro focuses quietly thanks to 'SWM'-motor (Silent Wbird Motor - quiet wave motor) and refers to the lens'AF S'type (with built-in motor focusing), and therefore it will automatically focus on any Nikon digital SLR camera.
The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR has an optional 'Full ∞-0.5m' switch that acts as a focusing distance limiter. The '∞' sign means infinity. The limiter switch is slightly smaller than the focus mode and stabilizer activity switches.
- In the 'Full' position, automatic focusing is available over the entire range of distances - from ∞ to 0.314 meters.
- In the '∞-0.5m' position, auto focus is available in the range from 50 cm to ∞.
Note that during manual focus, the limiter does not work.
Auto focus speed is fast, but still full lens travel during refocusing from infinity to MDF and back when the focus limiter is set to 'Full' takes a long time. The lens cannot instantly focus from infinity to MDF.
On cameras D700 и Nikon D3200 in the focus range of ∞-0.5m, the lens focuses tenaciously and does not release objects from the field of sharpness. At short focusing distances with focus and accuracy, things are much worse, but this is not a big problem for those who are seriously involved in macro photography.
During focusing, the front and rear lenses remain stationary, as the lens uses internal focusthat is indicated on the case by the letters'IF'-'Iinternal Focus' - 'Inner Focus'.
The minimum focusing distance is only 31.4 cm, while you can shoot Macro with 1: 1 magnification.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR has a window with a scale of distances in meters and feet, as well as a scale with a magnification ratio. There is even a depth of field scale, but only for F / 32. But on the label to work in the infrared spectrum saved.
In manual focus mode, the ring rotates about 235 degrees, when it reaches the extreme positions it does not rest, but continues to slide, without affecting the focus. Manual focus is easy.
On the lens housing you can find focus switch 'M / A - M'. In the 'M / A' position, auto focus works with constant manual focus priority. The 'M / A' mode is very convenient and useful - for manual focusing or focus correction, you do not need to additionally switch the lens to the 'M' mode.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro suffers very much 'Focus breathing'- change in viewing angle during focusing. Suffers so much that you need to get used to guessing how the viewing angle will change during focusing. Briefly, during focusing from infinity towards the MDF, the real focal length increases, which leads to a decrease in the viewing angle. The focal length indicated on the lens body and equal to 105 mm, corresponds to reality only when the lens is focused at infinity. An increase in focal length also entails a decrease in the relative aperture and a weakening of the stabilization system. This behavior is common to most (most, if not all) macro lenses.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro with hood in transport mode
Diaphragm
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro uses a 9-blade aperture. The aperture blades are rounded, which allows you to get enough for any value of the number F flat aperture.
Please note that Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro may use F / 2.8 only while focusing on infinityas soon as the focusing distance decreases, the aperture value increases. During focusing on MDF, the maximum relative aperture is 1: 4.8. Also, the maximum F-number rises to which the aperture blades can be closed from F / 32 to F / 57.
If you visually observe what happens during focusing, you can see that when focusing on infinity, the aperture blades are hidden, and the hole is formed by the inner frame of the case. When focusing towards MDF begins, the aperture blades begin to slowly close, their closure is automatic and depends on the position of the focus ring. Let me remind you that focusing through JVI always occurs at full aperture, the aperture closes to the set value only when shooting or turning on Live View.
Other macro lenses with which I had to deal with behave in a similar manner.
Dimensions of the huge Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro lens and Nikon D3200 camera crumbs
Image quality
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro picture quality everything is fine. Sharpness already with an open aperture, almost zero distortion, nice bokeh, small chromatic aberration, moderate vignetting on full frame camera, good resistance to side and backlight.
Of the shortcomings, I would single out only strong friging (the color of contrasting details in purple and green in the blur zone).
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro
Sample Photos
All photos were taken on the camera Nikon D3200 (24 MP, in terms of full frame - 54 MP). In the gallery below, all photos are on-camera JPEG.
JPEG source files ('.JPG') can be downloaded at this link (33 photos, 345 Mb). RAW source files ('.NEF') can be download from this link (36 photos, 734 Mb).
Sizes of "hundred" Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro and "fifty dollars" Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.4G SWM
My experience
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR is a very good lens. The first impression - 'what a whopper it is, and even so heavy'. The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR is one of the best lenses I've ever shot and I've tried quite a few of them.
For me, it turned out to use 105mm f / 2.8 VR for macro photography is much more convenient than Nikon N AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm 1: 2.8G SWM ED IF Aspherical Nano Crystal Coat.
It is often believed that the Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR can be used as a good portrait lens. For a portrait, of course, it is suitable, but it is much better for this business to use a specialized portrait lens. Nikon AF DC-Nikkor 105mm 1: 2 D Defocus Image Control with the same focal length. I am a big fan of shooting people, especially portraits, with macro lenses, but this time I did not have enough time and health to properly drive the Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR in public. Why macro lenses are not particularly suitable for portraiture, you can read here or see here. Write your impressions of this lens as a portrait portrait in the comments. My recommendations for choosing a portrait lens can be found here.
In general, macro photography is a very complex matter. Even with a super-cool lens like this Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR, it's sometimes hard to get a good shot. Many users often rely on the idea of macro photography, but as it comes down to it, there are a lot of disappointments due to a series of difficulties. First of all, difficulties are associated with a small depth of field and a constant lack of light when shooting with a closed aperture, the stabilizer in this lens will not change things.
Those who do not want to overpay for a stabilizer, 'N' -coating, built-in focusing motor and other innovations can easily get by with not so expensive, but super-quality Tokina Macro 100 F2.8 D AT-X PRO N / AIS or Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8D.
Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro length with lens hood
Prices
You can see the real prices of the lens in popular online stores, as well as buy a lens here, or in the price block below.
All autofocus MICRO / MC NIKKOR lenses
Z-mount FX:
F-mount FX:
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 50 mm 1:2.8 R-UW
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 55 mm 1:2.8
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 60 mm 1:2.8
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 60 mm 1: 2.8D
- Nikon N AF-S Micro Nikkor 60 mm 1: 2.8G SWM ED IF Aspherical Nano Crystal Coat (Japan or Thailand)
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 105 mm 1:2.8
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 105 mm 1: 2.8D
- Nikon N AF-S Micro Nikkor 105 mm 1: 2.8G ED VR SWM IF Micro 1: 1 Nano Crystal Coat (Japan or China)
- Nikon ED AF Micro Nikkor 200 mm 1: 4D
- Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 70-180 mm 1: 4.5-5.6D ED
F-mount DX:
- Nikon DX AF-S Micro Nikkor 40 mm 1: 2.8G SWM
- Nikon DX AF-S Micro Nikkor 85 mm 1: 3.5G ED VR SWM IF Micro 1: 1
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Results
The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro is a great professional macro lens. I consider it the best-in-class Nikon lens with this focal length.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
So, kmk, for 2006 it was a super macrick portrait. But in 2016 there was a need for a receiver with an aspheric, several EDs, the latest generation stub, and a long ring travel. And a completely unrealistic dream - with a diaphragm control ring, Sonya, by the way, announced the newest 85k with a diaphragm ring, so I'm not the only one who needs this ring.
But what is the meaning of a manual diaphragm ring?
Come on, get puffed up. Think about how much it will be to quench your desires, but, God forbid, repair. Managing the diaphragm isn’t that kind of effort — will you want to control it? A lot of wonderful macaroons in our forest, and you wander through the fields.
While you dream we shoot. Everyone knows that there are no limits to perfection, but today it is a wonderful, high-tech product that almost completely meets the requirements of a naturalist photographer. With a share of imagination and technical ingenuity, you can turn a camera with such a lens into a real macro unit capable of very serious work and predictably excellent results.
By the way, if anyone is interested, the optimal scheme for working in the field is only assembled on such mounts.
oh, there was an idea to take such an aggregate, but it scares me to hiccups!
I managed to try several types of mounts, aluminum, rubber and metal, all in the field. Everything works, but the big weight, the limited adjustment of the directions of the light and the danger of scratching the lens, lens hood, and scary for the tripod socket, to which everything is attached, greatly upset.
This option in the picture is really the best for macaroons in the field today. It is possible that they will come up with or have come up with something better, there is no limit to perfection, but this design is really light and spins in any direction. One pity that there are only two manipulators, it’s not worthwhile to exaggerate, but the third would not hurt. You can adapt a reflector to a clothespin or a piece of paper with a beautiful background.
Well, I agree with that. Although it was more interesting for me to try it simply in a reporting shoot with two tiny puffs.
How is the report? Tiny after all. 2-3 meters maximum go. If only reporting in a mouse hole. :)
and mice need coverage of their life!
OO He spoke. Vadim, do not swear. You are a maniac. :-)
Flashes can be easily used small and cheap, you do not have to take portraits.
These are quite suitable. Even without radio triggers, on simple cables, the weight of such a design is quite sane for mobile shooting. And on flashes, you can already cling to some penny softboxes.
.
yarkiy, if you're talking about me, then where did you get the idea that I only dream without taking pictures? It's a sin, however, I don't take off insects, I take off commercial jewelry, so I'm looking for the perfect tool for my purposes. If I have offended your religious feelings about the lens - I'm sorry. An article about the pros and cons of the lens, what I noticed - described.
At the expense of jewelry, maybe you’re right, although my attempts with jewelry have come up mostly in ways for lighting, and not in the lens. I think, if necessary, I could overcome the difficulties of creative light, buy something, make something myself, and calmly take it off to this little place. But since there is no need, and interest has passed, I don’t see any need to argue on this topic, besides, I completely share your desires to have something better and better all the time.
Forgive the Lord. What is the meaning of macro photo. Bright, you are the most advanced, in many areas photo art is not Tom, in a nutshell, what is the beauty of macro.
Lynx by the way, your opinion is also not indifferent.
This is a state of mind. Passion for the process. The realization that you see something that you simply don’t notice in ordinary everyday life. The admiration for the grandeur and skill of the Creator, who took care of the micro world that no one usually sees, is as magnificent as the world of our sizes, where we tirelessly climb with our cameras and try to impress the audience with the beauty of the landscapes created by him and the ones we shot.
This is if in short. But you can develop a theme. :)
The closeup is very diverse, take a look to their normal storage location at this link.
Most of the photos I personally have disgusting feelings. Especially where the lizard eats something, it's just a horror movie. There are beautiful ones with drops of water and dew. Photos of birds are certainly masterpieces, but they are difficult to attribute to macro.
1. scientific, populist role - primordial.
2. curiosity, the search for beauty in the surrounding world, and what you do not notice. It's like love for oranges, sailboats or dragons - whether it is or not, everything else is just an argument.
1. The scientific, populist role is primary. understood your absolutely exhaustive answer.
As I thought, there is practically no art.
By no means.
Macrophoto is a microcosm! And people like you, dear, are not taken into astronauts.
Yes, and people like you are unlikely to take.
Arkady, thank you very much for the review of my "Chinese pig". It was nice to receive the lens at the New Post office, packed many times better than to send it to you, and that kilometer of pimpled film in which my “piggy” was gently packed will be used in the future to send you something else interesting for all of us ...
Thank you very much.
Send more similar lenses for review :)
Violetta, in addition to thanking Arkady, I personally thank you!
With the World on a thread, and collect everything you need :)
Thank you!
Thank you gentlemen. Clearly, everything was explained. A new question begs. If so beautiful that we do not see, then our insides are also beautiful. Macro photo of the insides of a person. How about you? Attractive isn't it?
Very strange comparison.
Have you seen somewhere in the examples above or in general the insides of animals? How do you compare portraits ("full-length", "face?") Of insects with shooting the entrails?
The concept is beautiful, very relative, an attempt to impose your attitude to the beautiful is disrespect for your interlocutor.
I do not impose anything on anyone. I ask a simple question with the desire to hear a simple answer.
What is the beauty of macro photography. And you don’t have to invent everything.
I just don’t see the beauty in some kind of caterpillars, ants, leaves in which all the pores are visible.
I want to understand why some people are so intimate macro photos. If they explain to me, and I understand correctly, there may be a desire to do macro. That's all.
Jack? Did you go out into the night streets again?
I'm not Jack at all
just a weird Russian Pashka
who is looking for beauty in this world!
In the sense of "Ripper". Too explicit about the insides.
And about the oddities, that’s all garbage. I, you see, I will sit, and you convince me, convince me.
Yes, there is nothing more to do! Do not like it, pass by. Nobody persuaded me, he saw and got into it and didn’t ask anyone to prove that it was cool.
Pashek. They are so weird. Isn’t it, Bright. :)
You know how it feels today, and tomorrow threw it, and money down the drain.
It is necessary that in order to seriously and for a long time you need to know the opinions of other people. And you grief photo-mazy can not sing your favorite pastime, what to sing, really can not explain, so that people understand. You only have clamps and discuss.
And you, my friend, seemingly decided to get into the shit and not get dirty, or not, you wanted to know the taste of the signature dish from the stories, without trying it yourself.
So for now, you, you are our strange Pashka, comes out exactly as in a joke:
-I don’t understand what you found in this Pavarotti, he’s also fake and burr.
-And you heard him?
“God forbid, I have nothing more to do, it was enough that Rabinovich sang.”
In short, it’s time to stop feeding the fat troll.
I realized there was nothing more to say about cheap humor, they rolled down, about shit it went.
That's all your essence, baryzhnoy, just to remove the ugliness and sell more expensive.
There is no question of beauty here.
You would have to photograph potatoes like Kevin Abosch and cut the loot, but you have no thoughts about beauty.
to seriously and for a long time - the opinion of other people is not needed.
Need to want.
Two are looking out of the prison window.
But one sees only dirt behind him
and the second - the stars in the sky ...
Nobody will explain to you about beauty - you have to come to this yourself. And if you personally don’t like something, you don’t need to shout and wave flags, they say… g… full, because I don’t understand, but they cannot really explain.
And whether it is art or not is not for us to judge at all.
Is a black square an art?
Arkady, please add a letter in the review:
“In fact, there are only two Nikon Nikkor autofocus" macro-hundreds ", they are Nikon 105mm f / 2.8G VR and Nikon 105mm f / 2.8D, and if you choose between them, then almost everything points in favor of the new Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 ( ___G___) VR "
Nobody tried to adapt such a clamp for macro?
She has a thread under the head 1/4 and 3/8.
http://ali.pub/2i8d63
You can adapt a lot of things, but this clamp, specifically for what you offer? If you use it for something special, share your experience, and if you just saw it on the Internet, there are a million of them and a small cart of all kinds.
When I was shooting with the A610 soap dish, I used this clamp:
http://hotline.ua/foto-shtativy/continent_f5/
But for a DSLR it is rather weak ...
So I’m thinking that small and inexpensive to adapt as a replacement to throw in your pocket and not think?
You can summarize. Almost everyone in macro photos cares only for the technical side. How to achieve super quality, the side of aesthetics does not really bother anyone. We conclude that macro photos are not art, they are just a real reflection of the animal and plant world in all its unsightly naturalness. From what follows, I will not buy a macro lens.
If there are such opponents, please answer the question “Would you take a macro photo of your love?”
You, my dear, need a doctor, however.
And you will be cured.
What for opponents? No substantiated point of view - no opposition.
If you want to argue - give the arguments of your unfounded, for now, "results".
I did not understand what it means to photograph “my love” in macro ... some kind of incorrect formulation of the question ...
Beloved woman, girl, etc., do not understand simple words. If you take a photo of her macro and without makeup, you risk being crippled with a rolling pin. All the pores on the beautiful face will be visible, as well as hair. That's what I'm talking about. What I notice is that there are more and more fanatical techies here than real photo artists.
Be careful with the word - love (no specification). Love is also called the process of intercourse. It would be scary if you took it off with a makrik. :-)
Who seeks will always find.
The internet is full of non-technical? macro, but artistic.
There are authors who are imbued with macro photography through Soviet glass with their airy and in their own way beautiful pattern.
Each author has his own view on this. Someone artistry, someone secret, detail, etc.
Photographing nudity is a beauty trend, don't try yourself macro with that attitude.
Macro, landscape - beauty in its original form. It's okay that you don't see her today, as with many people today.
I agree with you, but not in everything.
Macro, landscape - beauty in its original form.
IMHO the landscape is yes, the macro is not. I think God and hid from our eyes what we do not need to see.
Such judgments lead to ignorance. Nobody saw the bacteria. However, they were first thawed under a microscope, and then they came up with antibiotics. The same applies to electric current, which is also hidden from your eyes, but is present in your computer, otherwise you would not be sitting here.
This is ignorance to remove ugliness and spread it as a beauty. Everyone has already filled with their avant-garde, macro and other pseudo art. Tell me, what is the beauty of this insect?
A repulsive image, suitable only for a biology textbook.
I have a great love for it! In general, why do you need to prove it! each has its own tastes and what difference does it make to you who and what takes pictures !!!!
I want to understand what is the beauty of macro for other people and draw certain conclusions for myself.
Maybe I also want to try. Macro lenses are expensive, so testing with the spear method is not possible.
The spiders above "World 1c" plus three expansion rings. Macro lenses are expensive I agree. But macro is definitely not interesting
interesting meant
Beautiful, but useless.
Sun shrugged in dismay and moved on. )))
A persistent but unsuccessful attempt to throw in and ignite ...
No one is trying to rekindle anyone. Forums for this purpose also serve that people spoke out, other people either argued with them, or agreed. In any case, this is much more interesting than fresh talk, about
which is better, a rubber ring of harshness or a plastic one. Useless boredom.
* and I will.
They ask you, explain more broadly, with a twinkle.
Here, for example, what then in your understanding is real art?
Art, in my understanding, is smooth lines with practically no sharp corners, it is light smoothly turning into shadow and vice versa, these are rich colors without frills, of course this is an interesting plot
with or without the main subject, decent sharpness and a highlight in the form of a small element somewhere closer to the edges of the frame.
Macro of beetles and spiders have nothing to do with beauty, this is a photo of horror and ugliness.
Macro colors are not interesting at all. they either look like scraps, or there is nothing else on them except for stamens and pistils. Well, what's beautiful in a cat's eye, and even with a flash reflection, you can see all the vessels (here's a photo of the organs, someone said above that I need to be treated) and the unsightly tuberosity of the apple. All this is valuable for science - I completely agree, for the present art is zero.
However, in our time, LGBT people, when the concept of beauty and hormone is apparently completely lost, even a photo of dirty potatoes is considered beautiful and is sold for a mill. Doll.
The world is going crazy and photographers who are chasing after something unprecedented and profitable have almost completely lost their sense of beauty in this race.
Thank you for sharing.
I sincerely disagree with you. Understand that what you call beauty - someone else will call boredom and / or ugliness. And vice versa.
What you described as art in no way aroused my sympathy. I am sure that if I had described my understanding, it would not have caused a positive response from you. People are different - please be more tolerant.
Essentially: photography is really discussed here, as a means of achieving results - photography. Whether it is commercial or highly artistic is not the point. This discussion (in the comments to the lens review) is about the means to achieve the result, not the result. There are tons of resources for discussing photos (as results) - an incredible heap.
Discuss the talk technique. Oh well. When I asked about this technique for the first time 2.5 years ago, you know how they answered “Technique is not important at all, pixels do not matter, you need to have hands, a heart, inspiration”, etc.
By the way, the same luminaries spoke who are teaching everyone here now, and whoever disagrees with their opinion is called “fat trolls”, in fact, they are trolls who lure newcomers with empty fables, and specialists quickly begin to “peck” and say, that they are trolls.
Everything is simple on almost every site of any subject they are.
I just thought that on the photo site people are creative with an understanding of the beautiful, I was far away the same as everywhere ordinary comrades and fans of blah blah blah.
You think I don’t know that everyone has a different concept of beauty, of course I know, but there is always a standard, but now these frames are blurred. All that you want can be called beauty.
I just thought that on the photo site people are creative with an understanding of the beautiful
—
are you talking about weddings or what?)))
IMHO, to some of the questions about technology this would be the most correct answer. It may not be in the same wording as you wrote, but still.
And they called the troll, because they wrote completely off topic in this discussion, moreover, very provocatively.
I will ignore your insults, but about beauty I will answer: open frames are a blessing for art, allowing you to move progress forward, create an incredible variety of forms and content. Each person for himself determines the filter at the entrance (what to watch, read, listen to, what of this is called “beauty”, “art”) and at the exit (what kind of music-literature to write, photographs to do, and so on). If you want to move your entry frames (to understand the beauty of macro photography, for example) - please! Infa just mass. I do not like? Then why publicly condemn what you do not understand? This is what trollism is. Therefore, you are not so welcome in this particular discussion.
Yeah, especially for profit with Mir 1b and three expansion rings. For many, it's just a hobby. It is impossible to look through a telescope, because it is hidden from our eyes. So you can undo all progress. It's time to round off, otherwise all this has nothing to do with this lens.
The most direct lens for photo ugliness.
And what will such progress lead you to, dig into the manure to look for ugly cockroaches and capture them on camera for a million. Which one is crazy?
And what is beautiful about the shaved "pussy" model and protruding nipples of her boobs? or in a bare ass? or ... I will not go deeper. And "Pashechki" write that this is art. :-) This is called “Nu”. Nu and nude, too, not all these "insides" are interesting.
There is “Nu”, and there is “macro”, and there is a “portrait”, but there is… Pashechka, take a picture of your “creative” soul or… your fat “troll” and show us, perhaps we will understand it (your soul) and forgive ... Just do it on your blog page, website, forum, and not a troll enthusiastic, for you incomprehensible people. The lens is being discussed here, but you were given a link to the macro forum. An off-topic discussion is called a flood and is removed to the trash if you are talking about the right to discuss.
I agree. There is no soul. And without a soul - the fire in the stuffing goes out!
Why did nature endow insects with such ugliness? In order to scare away those who want to eat them.
You admire this ugliness, it looks like the plot of the book by Victor Hugo "The Man Who Laughs", there they specially looked for and made ugly creatures in order to enjoy communicating with them.
What soul are you talking about? It is not entirely normal to chant ugliness as beauty.
By the way, is the black square admirable too? If so then this is almost a clinic.
Well, nature has also created you for some reason. So there’s a plan for everything
Do not confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs.
Lynx, burn - nothing can be fixed here.
Two charming and smart (rare!) Friends are waiting for me for a walk with cameras.
spend time on THIS creature? pff ...
Lynx, sincerely and white envy.
Go photo-bombed. Ha ha.
“The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro's image quality is fine. Sharpness from an open aperture, almost zero distortion, pleasant bokeh, small chromatic aberrations, moderate vignetting on a full-frame camera, good resistance to side and backlighting. blur). "
=========================================================== ===
100%.
he does not have a blur zone and a transit zone at all, so portraits are strictly contraindicated. There are stubborn rumors that the Japanese version does not have such a strong meringue.
like Makrik, he is arguably the best with Nikon.
among all 90mm-105mm makrikov he is not the best. there is also a higher resolution and with less freezing and a hybrid stub.
Denis
I did not think that they are so wedding
They are talking about the soul.
Lens Technical Features
Correctly wrote
The technical capabilities of the lens, and not a word about beauty and soulfulness.
I totally agree.
Technical capabilities are objective parameters (my photographs simply illustrate them), and “beauty and soulfulness” are subjective concepts that you yourself, as the author of the picture, bring into the frame.
Wow, great.
I'm talking about a caterpillar.
Ivan
When you troll trolls they snarl.
Denis correctly called you “weddings” and it is simply indecent to talk to you about beauty and art, because you don’t know anything about it. Bla-blakayte about clamps, rubber rings and "skillful hands". Well, about the potatoes that they bought for lam in a drunken shop.
Pasheka - and again you insult me. Snap back at my words.
I am leaving the discussion with you, because you do not understand the words. Please note - I behaved with you as correctly as possible.
I do not need your false correctness.
Or here ... ("eye" of Apollo)
sincerely!
Hello! How are girlfriends made of glamor? Something was filmed very quickly.
All the same, insects act badly on you
Not bugs, but "overwhelming" on the sites. And all sorts of "luminaries". Which grabbed the tops and teach all from above. For example, they ask Arkady, and they are right there with their advice, themselves are wedding bombiles, and they think of themselves as world-class photo artists as know-it-alls from the Russian stove.
How wonderful! Where can I take it off.
The charm! You might think that this is part of some landscape, in short, abstraction :)
We stop flooding. This is especially true for the user with the nickname "Pasheka".
Do not write your reviews to me in the mail. I don’t want to be friends with your site where the “watching hillocks” run the show.
Banset.
you are not adequate …….
The guy is either a very fat Troll or a drug addict (Peter!). Spider beetles are great. I would take them all with me, but you can’t. Therefore, I shoot, so that later I can watch and admire.
There is such a lens in the household, with portraits everything is fine, only you need to tidy up the sharpness during conversion for two or three divisions. And if the children are removed or 17-year-old ladies, then this is not required.
The lens is just a bomb!
"Why macro lenses are not particularly well suited for portraits can be read here or see here."
I looked. The main reason is called that you cannot manually fine-tune the focus due to the short stroke of the ring and because of this the subject may be out of focus, autofocus may also blur for the same reason.
After all, you can get around this point by increasing the depth of field, is not it? Maybe of course the bokeh will not be so pronounced, but I think this is not critical.
no. The lens has a certain parameter behind which "infinity". In general, most lenses lose their sharpness and drawing beyond this distance, which is critical for a portrait (but landscape painters use hyperfocal).
For medium portrait prime lenses, this is somewhere around 7-10 meters. Televisions - up to 30m. Actually, this is a convenient shooting distance.
For makrushnikov most often - 2-3 meters. those. any portrait more than half-length comes out "at infinity", which is not very well reflected in the frame.
Judging by the marking on the lens, infinity after 10m begins specifically for this macrushnik.
Although not. Wrong. 3 meters. This is at 70-300 10m.
Arkady, maybe someone already asked, but what is your set of lenses?
The latest models of Kenon and Nikon were created with the aim of increasing versatility, therefore they are disgusting chromate in the macro, which is further affected by problems with centering. A stabilizer in macro is contraindicated, since it introduces decentering and enhances the skew of the lenses, which provokes the growth of transverse CAs in already chromate optical schemes (stub, internal focusing). When shooting with a converter / on multi-megapixel cameras, image defects are no longer completely removed. Laudatory tests of these lenses have been performed by most sites in conditions far from macro photography.
For subject or macro shots, a normal sample of the old Tamron 90 2.8 (no stub) outperforms K and H in image quality ...
shot macro on a 90mm swab (old), nikon 105, kenon 105 with a stub.
the lowest HA - at kenon. the highest resolution is at kenon.
by itself, stubs when shooting macro are disabled)))).
when shooting with hands, the stub is extremely useful, although like any working stub, the resolution slightly decreases.
the old tampon has the picture closest to the 100/2 kenon in the blur zone, the resolution even in the center is not super, which is important for macro.
"Laudable tests of these lenses have been performed by most sites in conditions far from macro photography."
====================
Really? )))) there are many tests where these lenses were tested in macro mode)))
can you lay out the RAVs of paired shots in the macro that you made and from what you got here such a terrific conclusion ???
"A normal sample of the old Tamron 90 2.8 (no stub) outperforms K and H in image quality ..."
:))))))))
not a bad article, there is a section with a macro test:
Canon EF 100 / 2.8L IS USM Macro vs Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 105 / 2.8G ED
http://evtifeev.com/22113-canon-ef-100-2-8l-is-usm-macro-vs-nikon-af-s-micro-nikkor-105-2-8g-ed.html
"Really? )))) there are many tests where these lenses were tested in macro mode))) "
“Quite a few” tests are false - The normal macro test on memory is only 1, even before the release of 100 2.8L. There Tamron 90, which is not surprising, is on par with 1mp-e by 1: 65 and outperforms 100 by 2.8 non-elki (which beats Elki in centering and up to 2-3 times in HA).
"You can put the RAVs of paired macro shots that you made and from what got this amazing conclusion ???" there are 5 or more sources on the Internet confirming my words:
Conclusion is normal and reasonable - offhand -
dpreview - 100 2.8 clearly shows that Elki has problems with centering and XA, 100 2.8 does not
the digital picture - 100 2.8 neelka is better for the corners in resolution and HA than elka
photozone -Nelka is sharper at the edges and corners of Elka and chromatite is half as much
lenstip - non-Helka chromatite less than Elka
http://www.nnplus.de/macro/hAllerand.html - the old tamron is better than the old neelka, which on 4 sites is better than the elki))) what other proofs are needed?
If you are a fan of 100 2.8el or 105 vr, it hurt you - and these examples from various reliable sources are not enough for you - and supposedly on purpose, to convince you, I need to re-purchase all these lenses in order to make pairwise comparisons in macro with high accuracy - you then _to this_ you will say - oh, yes, this is the wrong focus, the aperture is not closed, the light is not puffed out, the shooting angle is different, the body is different, because “your _submit the name of the lens_ is the best” anyway))) wasting time and money? I have already reviewed all the models and left the best ones.
In this article, not a macro test, but a set of different photos with different shooting settings
Good afternoon! Experienced photographers, please help a newbie! I have a Nikon D5200 camera in a kit camera. I make money by photographing food and writing cooking articles. I want a new lens for better photos, one that won't change later, and one that is also suitable for shooting portraits, landscapes and close-ups of insects, so that there is a beautiful bokeh in the photo (I understand that it is impossible to combine everything, but still ( primarily photography of food and insects)). I probably need a macro lens. I have been trying to choose for a long time, - I searched all the forums and looked through a bunch of reviews, - but I got completely confused. Someone advises to be sure to take a fix, another - a zoom (he says that he bought a fix, but had to return to the zoom, since it is more convenient to use it in photographing food). I settled on 2 variants: Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro and Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.4G SWM. Yes, I know that both are fixes: in the zooms, I'm generally confused.
I have a few questions:
1) Is there a huge difference in the quality of the photos and in using them for the purposes I need, which I indicated above (just the difference in price is two times, is it worth it to overpay) ?;
2) The Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro specification says that it is designed for Nikon FX, but I have a DX camera (D5200). And then, in the comments, I read that a person uses this lens with the same camera as mine. Question: Are Nikon 105mm f / 2.8 VR Micro and Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.4G SWM suitable for Nikon D5200?
3) If you think that I still need a zoom, then advise which one, please.
Thank you all in advance!
Good evening. I see no one answers, I'll try. 2) FX lenses work great on DX cameras, unless they are more expensive. 1) Differences in photo quality from 105 / 2,8 and 50 / 1,4 (by the way, why not 50 / 1,8G?), I think, will be insignificant, both shoot qualitatively, their purpose is different - the first, in addition, that an excellent macro lens, also a good portrait lens, and will shoot food, but with landscapes it is much more difficult - it is narrow, for the same reason and as a station wagon is inconvenient (unlike 35mm), the 50 is a universal on an FX camera (like 35mm on DX), on the crop he is partly a portrait photographer, on the street he can be a reporter, the room is cramped, food, of course, will shoot, the landscape is difficult (too narrow). 3) I don’t want to advise you to zoom - they don’t have a macro, there are slightly enlarging ones, up to 1: 3 (and we need 1: 1), fixes usually give a better picture. Have you considered Nikkor 40 / 2,8 micro? He will shoot food perfectly, insects, however, flightless - he has a focusing distance at macro 7-8 cm to the lens, portraits are waist-length, the landscape is not wide (you can use a wide whale lens) and, like a wagon, it will fit - almost 35-k.
Or like this - https://radojuva.com/2014/12/nikon-n-af-s-60-mm-2-8g-ed-if/
I think it would be better for you to look at 50 1.8, and even better even at fast aperture, you will also have a blurring background and awesome convenience. plus the focusing distance is very small, for food the most. you don’t need any macro. Read- https://buynbest.ru/luchshij-universalnyj-zum-obektiv-nikon/
as for 105 2.8 this is Makrik for the full frame. Awesome thing and darling!
dust / moisture protection, weighs a ton, but the quality ... diaragma 2.8 again, even though you can shoot a macro portrait.
liked how it is described - https://buynbest.ru/luchshij-makroobektiv-nikon/#alter2
Specifically, in your case, I would generally recommend thinking about sigma 18-35 (https://buynbest.ru/luchshij-universalnyj-zum-obektiv-nikon/) as a universal staffer.
an awesome aperture will give you a lot of blurring the background + a very small focus distance will allow you to shoot food as well.
I hope Arkady is getting a release?
Yes, we contacted Arkady. If he misses the letter, then I hope to answer us on the comment
105mm on a crop is a telescope for your purposes, and it will be difficult to shoot food beautifully.