Canon 100mm f2.8 IS "vs" Nikon 105 f2.8 VR ? is this the best Nikon will do

[Hawaii-geek]

Canon 100mm f2.8 IS Macro "vs" Nikon 105 f2.8 VR Macro ? is this the best Nikon will do this year? for a FF D700

Curious what more experianced Nikon shooters think?

Canon 100 f2.8 IS Macro
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1291/cat/10

Nikon 105 f2.8 VR Macro
not a test on FF ... but, you get the picture.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/351/cat/12

Still hunting for a Macro solution with VR and AF ... and wondering should I "just" go with a Canon 500D close-up filter on my 70-200 f2.8 VR II for now, and wait?

Thank you,
HG

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

 

[Hawaii-geek]

Canon 100mm f2.8 IS Macro "vs" Nikon 105 f2.8 VR Macro ? is this the best Nikon will do this year? for a FF D700

Curious what more experianced Nikon shooters think?

Canon 100 f2.8 IS Macro
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1291/cat/10

Nikon 105 f2.8 VR Macro
not a test on FF ... but, you get the picture.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/351/cat/12

Still hunting for a Macro solution with VR and AF ... and wondering should I "just" go with a Canon 500D close-up filter on my 70-200 f2.8 VR II for now, and wait?

Thank you,
HG

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

 

[rinsephotographic]

the nikon 105VR is a stunning lens. i just bought it after lots of careful consideration and use of other macros. i have no idea how this lens gets its reputation for not being sharp as a tack...my experiences tend to fall in line with the photozone test: sharp as sharp gets, especially at portrait distances. subjectively, i'd say that its sharper at f/2.8 than my canon 100/2.8 macro was, though i don't own that lens anymore so i can't do a direct comparison. the VR is great and makes a massive difference in real world shooting, especially in the dull grey depths of a vancouver winter the bokeh is very nice as well.

best dual purpose lens nikon makes and great value...yes, even at $800.

--
dave

 

[Hawaii-geek]

Dave,

Thank you for your comments.

This post is not to trash the Nikon 105VR, I have never used it.
Only looking at the data. and the compair with the Canon 100 VR macro.
It seems Nikon "could" have done better, with there FF macro VR.

I have seen files on a wedding shoot, with the 105 macro ... nice portrait.

But, from what I remember of the files , and what I am shooting now with the 70-200 VR II ... the VR II , at least "seems" a lot sharper wide open.

Just my opinion.
HG

the nikon 105VR is a stunning lens. i just bought it after lots of careful consideration and use of other macros. i have no idea how this lens gets its reputation for not being sharp as a tack...my experiences tend to fall in line with the photozone test: sharp as sharp gets, especially at portrait distances. subjectively, i'd say that its sharper at f/2.8 than my canon 100/2.8 macro was, though i don't own that lens anymore so i can't do a direct comparison. the VR is great and makes a massive difference in real world shooting, especially in the dull grey depths of a vancouver winter the bokeh is very nice as well.

best dual purpose lens nikon makes and great value...yes, even at $800.

--
dave

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

 

[CLOSED ACCOUNT]

Here's a few recent pics that I have taken with the Nikon 105mm VR

Macro 1:1
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro

non Macro (closeup)
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h100fd94c
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h836b7f5
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#hcec7da4

Regular Still-life Distance
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h256b03ab
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h200870c2
http://kvincentphotography.ca/fooddrink/h242c1b1f#h242c1b1f

I think the colour rendition is very good, the optical clarity very decent and it's as sharp as you want it to be.

I know a guy in Toronto who also specializes in flower, macro, and microscopic photography using the Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro with stacked closeup lenses (ie: 250D, 5T/6T) and he gets really good results with that setup.

Overall, comparing our images I'd say IQ-wise they are pretty much the same.

I've never used the Canon macro myself...that's why I make this referrence.

Hope this helps,

KEV

 

[masquar]

Get the Zeiss Makro-Planar, you will see another world in terms of colors, bokeh and sharpness.

Ciao
Massimo

Canon 100mm f2.8 IS Macro "vs" Nikon 105 f2.8 VR Macro ? is this the best Nikon will do this year? for a FF D700

Curious what more experianced Nikon shooters think?

Canon 100 f2.8 IS Macro
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1291/cat/10

Nikon 105 f2.8 VR Macro
not a test on FF ... but, you get the picture.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/351/cat/12

Still hunting for a Macro solution with VR and AF ... and wondering should I "just" go with a Canon 500D close-up filter on my 70-200 f2.8 VR II for now, and wait?

Thank you,
HG

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

--
Massimo Quarta
http://www.massimoquarta.com

 

[CLOSED ACCOUNT]

Get the Zeiss Makro-Planar, you will see another world in terms of colors, bokeh and sharpness.

I'm yet to see this 'other world' as you put it.

The Zeiss and Nikon 105mmVR MTF numbers are very close, and whilst the Zeiss might just have the edge (excuse the pun)...I doubt IF an observer could actually notice any difference in 'normal' viewing situations.

In fact, Photozone.de said the Nikon 105mm VR set a record for border resolution in their lab testing. Both lenses are 2250 at f/5.6 which is excellent.

The colours and bokeh are great on both lenses, just different, neither one better than the other - it's purely a matter of taste.

Please post a shot that clearly illustrates this Zeiss 'other world'

thanks,

KEV

 

[Riccardo Polini]

Please post a shot that clearly illustrates this Zeiss 'other world'

MTF plots have nothing to do with photography. Exactly the same as frequency response curves and quality of audio systems. No correlation at all. I mean, a good frequency response curve (or MTF plot) is a necessary but not sufficient condition to assess the quality of a audio (optical) system.

Moreover, low-res jpegs like those posted in your website would look the same independently of the lens. They only show your lighting technique. They are what they are: they show your photographic skills.

105 VR has more CA (at all apertures) and less sharpness, in particular at wider apertures. Micro-contrast of the 100 ZF is higher, too.
Also the 85 PC outperforms the 105 VR (I own 85 PC, 105 VR & 100 ZF).

Moreover, manual focusing with 100/2 ZF is a joy. With 105 VR is a pain, with 85 PC is better than 105 but not as good as 100 ZF.
Don't misunderstand me: 105 VR is a very good lens; 100 ZF is optically better.

 

[CLOSED ACCOUNT]

Please post a shot that clearly illustrates this Zeiss 'other world'

MTF plots have nothing to do with photography. Exactly the same as frequency response curves and quality of audio systems. No correlation at all. I mean, a good frequency response curve (or MTF plot) is a necessary but not sufficient condition to assess the quality of a audio (optical) system.

First of all you say that MTF has nothing to do with photography, then in the next breath you say a good MTF plot is necessary. That's a very contradictory statement.

IF MTF wasn't relevent than why do they always include that data in lens reviews

Moreover, low-res jpegs like those posted in your website would look the same independently of the lens.

Exactly, I know this I've been a photographer for almost 40 years.
Tell me something that I don't already know...

105 VR has more CA (at all apertures) and less sharpness, in particular at wider apertures. Micro-contrast of the 100 ZF is higher, too.

Agreed, but can one actually detect much differences in regular/normal viewing situations?

Moreover, manual focusing with 100/2 ZF is a joy. With 105 VR is a pain, >

That's purely subjective...I don't find manual focusing with the 105VR to be a pain.
One mans joy is another mans pain, etc.

KEV

 

[Lilgish44]

Please post a shot that clearly illustrates this Zeiss 'other world'

MTF plots have nothing to do with photography. Exactly the same as frequency response curves and quality of audio systems. No correlation at all. I mean, a good frequency response curve (or MTF plot) is a necessary but not sufficient condition to assess the quality of a audio (optical) system.

Moreover, low-res jpegs like those posted in your website would look the same independently of the lens. They only show your lighting technique. They are what they are: they show your photographic skills.

105 VR has more CA (at all apertures) and less sharpness, in particular at wider apertures. Micro-contrast of the 100 ZF is higher, too.
Also the 85 PC outperforms the 105 VR (I own 85 PC, 105 VR & 100 ZF).

Moreover, manual focusing with 100/2 ZF is a joy. With 105 VR is a pain, with 85 PC is better than 105 but not as good as 100 ZF.
Don't misunderstand me: 105 VR is a very good lens; 100 ZF is optically better.

Riccardo, I found your reviews comparing these lenses on Nikonlinks in italian language. Is there any chance you will make them available in English? I think they are very well done by comparing the pictures but I would like to be able to read them and I think many others will be interested too.

Regards
Lilgish

 

[CLOSED ACCOUNT]

Riccardo, I found your reviews comparing these lenses on Nikonlinks in italian language. Is there any chance you will make them available in English? I think they are very well done by comparing the pictures but I would like to be able to read them and I think many others will be interested too.

Riccardo,

I've also read your comparison review several times - thanks for doing that.
I have studied your crop pics quite a bit too over the past months.

I DO notice that both the 85 PC and Zeiss are definitely sharper than the 105VR wide open....however, by around f/8 the differences are becoming much less and by f/11 there really is no noticeable difference even with the crop...so at regular viewing, it certainly wouldn't be distinguishable.

At macro 1:1, I frequently shoot at f16 or f/22, and suspect that at these apertures the difference between lenses to be negligable.

Also note, on sudying your pics closely, I detect virtually no difference between the 85 PC and the Zeiss at all apertures shown (only a touch at f/2.8). In the eye crop example, I actually think the 85 PC is the best.

My next lens purchase will be the newer 85mm PC-E which I need for my studio still-life/product work. Obviously, this lens will provide good optical performance as well as the regular tilt/shift ability.

Cheers,

KEV

 

[Riccardo Polini]

First of all you say that MTF has nothing to do with photography, then in the next breath you say a good MTF plot is necessary. That's a very contradictory statement.

I said "necessary but not sufficient". It's a logical statement.

A lens showing a poor MTF plot has most likely a bad performance. A lens with a good MTF plot might have also good IQ. But it is not sure ...

IF MTF wasn't relevent than why do they always include that data in lens reviews

Who are you referring to? Magazine that get money (advertising) from importers/producers?

The manufacturing company itself ?? So you trust what Nikon claims more than your eyes?

That's purely subjective...I don't find manual focusing with the 105VR to be a pain.

Probably because you've never used 100 ZF. Good or bad is a relative concept ...
A 6 Mpix DSLR (my D100) was excellent just few years ago ...

 

[Riccardo Polini]

I have studied your crop pics quite a bit too over the past months.

Actually I've published the test with crops few days ago ....

I DO notice that both the 85 PC and Zeiss are definitely sharper than the 105VR wide open....however, by around f/8 the differences are becoming much less and by f/11 there really is no noticeable difference even with the crop...so at regular viewing, it certainly wouldn't be distinguishable.

Look at the crops at infinity (building). Despite of CA correction performed automatically by NX (I shot nef with my D300, then converted to jpegs), the 105 VR still exhibits CA even at f/8 (check the left edge of the building).

At macro 1:1, I frequently shoot at f16 or f/22, and suspect that at these apertures the difference between lenses to be negligable.

Sure. At those apertures each lens is diffraction limited. They all behave more or less the same. Diffraction kills the engineers efforts.

Also note, on sudying your pics closely, I detect virtually no difference between the 85 PC and the Zeiss at all apertures shown (only a touch at f/2.8). In the eye crop example, I actually think the 85 PC is the best.

I feel the Zeiss is better, but I made my opinion by looking at the original NEFs.
85 PC optics is better than 105 VR, definitely.

My next lens purchase will be the newer 85mm PC-E which I need for my studio still-life/product work. Obviously, this lens will provide good optical performance as well as the regular tilt/shift ability.

I owned the 24 PC-E (I sent it back due to misalignement problems at infinity). My 85 PC had a better built quality (mechanics, I mean). I'd suggest you to buy the older 85 PC. It's also cheaper.

Riccardo

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Sort of on topic, I very much doubt if a CU on a fast telephoto can match the corner quality of any of the macros under discussion.

Whilst I have not seen tests with the Canon CU on the Nikon 70-200 it is rare to see a CU tested on another lens that comes anywhere near macro lens corner quality - except for a few dedicated CU's designed for specific macro lenses.

As regards the Nikon VR it has good bokeh for a macro, fast AF, reasonable manual focus, good VR, good optical quality, works with Nikon TC's - and comfortably delivers 16 inch wide prints.

It is best for each photography to decide what combination of features best meets their needs, and then to select a product to fill those needs.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

 

[Riccardo Polini]

I very much doubt if a CU on a fast telephoto can match the corner quality of any of the macros under discussion.

For sure a macro lens has a better field flatness. The problem is if you use it to photograph stamps or butterflies ... and if you use it on DX or FX. On DX my 80-400+Canon 500 D combo performs very well.

 

[Kuvasauna]

It realy is a dual purpose lens: an excellent macro lens and a very good portrait lens with FX cameras
--

'Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.'

 

[Riccardo Polini]

I use 105 VR as a general-purpose medium tele lens. I love it also for portraits (I like VR and AF for low light photography: MF is rather difficult in available light and AF is preferable; VR is a god send that allows me shooting at 1/20 s ...).

For macro and landscape (i.e. when I do not need neither AF nor VR) I prefer the 100 ZF.

So, I use 105 VR for travel/reportage; I use 100 ZF for nature photography (i.e. close-ups and landscapes).

 

[beautifulimpressions]

first, I'm not a pixel peeper so my findings are based on viewing images that I've done using both lenses (of the same subject) and my own biased opinion of the results. that said.......

I've been very happy with the results that I've gotten out of each lens. neither blows the other away in terms of IQ (really more or less the same to the naked eye) IMHO.

the only noticable difference is that the image in the camera viewfinder from the 105 on my D3 is a bit brighter (under the same lighting conditions) compared to the 100 on my 1DsII. but this most likely has to do with the camera body and not the lens itself.

 

[Riccardo Polini]

Riccardo, I found your reviews comparing these lenses on Nikonlinks in italian language. Is there any chance you will make them available in English? I think they are very well done by comparing the pictures but I would like to be able to read them and I think many others will be interested too.

Hi Lilgish,

my test is not complete. I would like to show similar comparisons (crops) using a FX body too and to discuss flare/ghosts behavior of each lens.
Therefore, first I would like to acquire more data.
Then I'll consider to translate and to publish the text also in English.

I'll inform Nikonlinks (i.e. Edwin) about the English version, if and when it will be available.

Thank you for your interest in my tests.

Best,

Riccardo

 

[CLOSED ACCOUNT]

I have studied your crop pics quite a bit too over the past months.

Actually I've published the test with crops few days ago ....

Hmm, I was sure that I'd seen those crops previously...I've read your reviews before, so I must be mistaken...aanyhow...

At macro 1:1, I frequently shoot at f16 or f/22, and suspect that at these apertures the difference between lenses to be negligable.

Sure. At those apertures each lens is diffraction limited. They all behave more or less the same. Diffraction kills the engineers efforts.

That was my whole point. At the f/11 to f/22 range there is very little difference between the three lenses....and, as a lot of macro work is shot iin the f/16 - f/22 range...in reality the Zeiss isn't actually any better.

Even at f/16 all three lense are around 1700 MTF which is considered very good.

Also note, on studying your pics closely, I detect virtually no difference between the 85 PC and the Zeiss at all apertures shown (only a touch at f/2.8). In the eye crop example, I actually think the 85 PC is the best.

I feel the Zeiss is better, but I made my opinion by looking at the original NEFs.
85 PC optics is better than 105 VR, definitely.

I owned the 24 PC-E (I sent it back due to misalignement problems at infinity). My 85 PC had a better built quality (mechanics, I mean). I'd suggest you to buy the older 85 PC. It's also cheaper.

I'm not concerned about the price of the newer version...

KEV