Best macro lens for D810?

Robin Casady · May 15, 2015

…if you want to use bellows or extension tubes. G lenses don't have aperture rings so they cannot be used with most bellows and extension tubes. There is no way to control the aperture. There are some expensive extension tubes that have electrical connections, but most don't.

Nikon still makes the AF 60mm f/2.8D Micro-Nikkor in spite of having the AF-S 60mm f/2.8G Micro-Nikkor.

I have the AF 60mm f/2.8D Micro-Nikkor, AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR, AF Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm 4.5-5.6D ED, and a variety of EL Nikkor and Schneider Componon-S Enlarger lenses adapted to work with bellows. All are decent lenses, but I wouldn't say any is stellar on the D800E.

Bunza · May 15, 2015

Since we're talking bellows, I believe the German company Novoflex makes bellow systems with electrical contacts for Nikon's G lenses.

They are super expensive and modular so you have to assemble all the components, bellows, body stage, lens stage, stand and focusing rail, Tilt/Swing if desired, adaptors for Nikon with electrical contacts and the cord, and probably more. It really add$$$ up.

I've only used Nikon's long-discontinued PB-6 and PB-4 (with no contacts) because they can be found for 2 or 3 hundred bucks (even for the tilt/swing PB-4) at KEH.

This means Nikon's modern and popular AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 IF-ED could be fully functional in a bellows.

My 105 copy is about a year old and made in China ... the new AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED I just bought was made in Japan and even the included old school hard case was made in Japan. The not-included $50 lens hood is actually metal and made in Japan too.

I know the country-of-origin thing is controversial, but I can help but feel the crinkle-coated 200 I just bought is an classic example of a bygone era, yet brand new. It's overdue for an update to all-plastic and China-origin, but I'll keep my 'old' Japanese tank thank you very much. :-D

BobWorrell · May 15, 2015

ormdig said:
Hi Mike, I have used the Nikkor 105 for about four years. It is very sharp with a nice flat field. The auto focus is necessary for active insects and flowers in the wind (it seems the best light is always when there is a breeze) and birds at feeders. It also works well for general use. Be advised it can hunt somewhat when changing near to far or vice versa but is very accurate. MF has a throw of about 2/3 turn which is enough to make fine tuning easy.

Depth of field at close distance is obviously very shallow even stopped down. Many people stack images but I like the single image effects.

As to the 200 f/2 I wouldn't hesitate to get it if I could afford it. One of my "someday, I hope" lenses.

A few samples with the 105,

Female Titmouse through a double pane, tinted window.

--
Pete

Wow Nice shots, have you ever tried extension tubes? I have a set and have never tried them.

What does the 3 different sizes do?

Bunza · May 15, 2015

BobWorrell said:
BobWorrell wrote: ... have you ever tried extension tubes? I have a set and have never tried them.

What does the 3 different sizes do?

A longer tube just holds the lens further from the sensor.

This results in more magnification since you are using a smaller amount of the center of a len's projected circle of light.

BTW, tubes have no optics.

You can stack the tubes for even more extension, but I wouldn't do this with the heavier macro lenses since it may stress the body's lens flange.

Robin Casady · May 15, 2015

Bunza said:
Since we're talking bellows, I believe the German company $ makes bellow systems with electrical contacts for Nikon's G lenses.

They are super expensive and modular so you have to assemble all the components, bellows, body stage, lens stage, stand and focusing rail, Tilt/Swing if desired, adaptors for Nikon with electrical contacts and the cord, and probably more. It really add$$$ up.

I've only used Nikon's long-discontinued PB-6 and PB-4 (with no contacts) because they can be found for 2 or 3 hundred bucks (even for the tilt/swing PB-4) at KEH.

I have a PB-4.

Bunza said:
This means Nikon's modern and popular AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 IF-ED could be fully functional in a bellows.

This lens is a G. So you would have to have the $1,000+ Novoflex bellows. It will not work with the PB-4 or PB-6. D lenses have an aperture ring. G lenses do not.

Bunza said:
My 105 copy is about a year old and made in China ... the new AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED I just bought was made in Japan and even the included old school hard case was made in Japan. The not-included $50 lens hood is actually metal and made in Japan too.

I know the country-of-origin thing is controversial, but I can help but feel the crinkle-coated 200 I just bought is an classic example of a bygone era, yet brand new. It's overdue for an update to all-plastic and China-origin, but I'll keep my 'old' Japanese tank thank you very much. :-D

How would you compare the 105 to the 200? Much difference in optical quality?

BobWorrell · May 15, 2015

Bunza said:
Bunza said:

BobWorrell wrote: ... have you ever tried extension tubes? I have a set and have never tried them.

What does the 3 different sizes do?

Click to expand...

A longer tube just holds the lens further from the sensor.

This results in more magnification since you are using a smaller amount of the center of a len's projected circle of light.

BTW, tubes have no optics.

You can stack the tubes for even more extension, but I wouldn't do this with the heavier macro lenses since it may stress the body's lens flange.

Thanks, do they change the DOF or anything?

Bunza · May 15, 2015

Robin Casady said:
Robin Casady wrote:How would you compare the 105 to the 200? Much difference in optical quality?

I intend to do an apples to apples test when I get time.

Anyone have suggestions as to subject, settings, etc?

lickity split · May 15, 2015

Bunza said:
Bunza said:

BobWorrell wrote: ... have you ever tried extension tubes? I have a set and have never tried them.

What does the 3 different sizes do?

Click to expand...

A longer tube just holds the lens further from the sensor.

This results in more magnification since you are using a smaller amount of the center of a len's projected circle of light.

BTW, tubes have no optics.

You can stack the tubes for even more extension, but I wouldn't do this with the heavier macro lenses since it may stress the body's lens flange.

I picked up a PN-11 from KEH think it was $60-70 I believe it picks up the magnification to 1.5:1 , it's a pretty big ext. tube (52.5 mm)that has a spot to attach a camera plate. And the build quality is excellent .

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Lens-CloseUp/2647/PN-11-Auto-Extension-Tube.html

golf1982 · May 16, 2015

ravduc said:
My personal opinion is that I would not waste my money on an auto-focus macro lens, unless you plan on using it a lot for other stuff. For most macro shots, you will find yourself disabling auto-focus. I would look at purchasing an older Nikkor macro mf lens. There are some excellent one's out there at a great price.

I have an old Nikon 105 (moter drive) i bought used some years ago, and it is exelent on my d810. Was out using it earlier today

Robin Casady · May 16, 2015

Bunza said:
Bunza said:

Robin Casady wrote:How would you compare the 105 to the 200? Much difference in optical quality?

Click to expand...

I intend to do an apples to apples test when I get time.

Anyone have suggestions as to subject, settings, etc?

Aperture f/8 & f/5.6. Subject could be something that tests the flatness of the field of focus. Make sure the sensor plane is parallel to the subject by doing a mirror alignment. The reflection of the camera should be positioned in the viewfinder so that the center of the lens is aligned with the center AF box.

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
When you look through the viewfinder do you see an object or do you see a picture?
__________________
"I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them." — Ansel Adams, 1981

steras · May 16, 2015

Extremely good lens. Beats the Zeiss 100 with less (read: zero) chromatic aberrations and it does 1:1.

pluton · May 17, 2015

steras said:
Extremely good lens. Beats the Zeiss 100 with less (read: zero) chromatic aberrations and it does 1:1.

This is what I was going to suggest, but aren't they up to about $3000 now?

steras · May 18, 2015

pluton said:
steras said:

Extremely good lens. Beats the Zeiss 100 with less (read: zero) chromatic aberrations and it does 1:1.

Click to expand...

This is what I was going to suggest, but aren't they up to about $3000 now?

systemguy · May 18, 2015

If you want to look at some of mine try this one and beyond:

https://flic.kr/p/rBH6Aw

I seem to recall reading here that the SIgma 105mm is a better value for the money......

labalaba · May 18, 2015

Robin Casady said:
Bunza said:

Since we're talking bellows, I believe the German company $ makes bellow systems with electrical contacts for Nikon's G lenses.

They are super expensive and modular so you have to assemble all the components, bellows, body stage, lens stage, stand and focusing rail, Tilt/Swing if desired, adaptors for Nikon with electrical contacts and the cord, and probably more. It really add$$$ up.

I've only used Nikon's long-discontinued PB-6 and PB-4 (with no contacts) because they can be found for 2 or 3 hundred bucks (even for the tilt/swing PB-4) at KEH.

Click to expand...

I have a PB-4.

Robin Casady said:

This means Nikon's modern and popular AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 IF-ED could be fully functional in a bellows.

Click to expand...

This lens is a G. So you would have to have the $1,000+ Novoflex bellows. It will not work with the PB-4 or PB-6. D lenses have an aperture ring. G lenses do not.

Robin Casady said:

My 105 copy is about a year old and made in China ... the new AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED I just bought was made in Japan and even the included old school hard case was made in Japan. The not-included $50 lens hood is actually metal and made in Japan too.

I know the country-of-origin thing is controversial, but I can help but feel the crinkle-coated 200 I just bought is an classic example of a bygone era, yet brand new. It's overdue for an update to all-plastic and China-origin, but I'll keep my 'old' Japanese tank thank you very much. :-D

Click to expand...

How would you compare the 105 to the 200? Much difference in optical quality?

I have both these lenses. I've never done an 'apples-to-apples' comparison because they are quite different tools, I can't really imagine them being interchangeable. The 200mm is certainly very sharp (I have no problem cropping to 100% on the D7100 sensor) and does not seem to have the well-known CA that the 105VR exhibits with contrasty subjects, not that that issue has much practical impact on my images. It is a significantly larger, heavier, slower lens that encourages a different approach from the shorter macros. For what it's worth I personally prefer a shorter focal length for the general macro subjects you describe, I find their perspective more three-dimensional and interesting. I use the 200mm for butterflies and such. I don't see the point of comparing a 60mm lens with a 200mm lens, these are different focal lengths in macro photography as in other photography.

Robin Casady said:
--

Robin Casady · May 18, 2015

labalaba said:
Robin Casady said:

How would you compare the 105 to the 200? Much difference in optical quality?

Click to expand...

I have both these lenses. I've never done an 'apples-to-apples' comparison because they are quite different tools, I can't really imagine them being interchangeable. The 200mm is certainly very sharp (I have no problem cropping to 100% on the D7100 sensor) and does not seem to have the well-known CA that the 105VR exhibits with contrasty subjects, not that that issue has much practical impact on my images. It is a significantly larger, heavier, slower lens that encourages a different approach from the shorter macros. For what it's worth I personally prefer a shorter focal length for the general macro subjects you describe, I find their perspective more three-dimensional and interesting. I use the 200mm for butterflies and such. I don't see the point of comparing a 60mm lens with a 200mm lens, these are different focal lengths in macro photography as in other photography.

Have you used the two lenses on FX?

labalaba · May 19, 2015

Robin Casady said:
labalaba said:

Robin Casady said:

How would you compare the 105 to the 200? Much difference in optical quality?

Click to expand...

I have both these lenses. I've never done an 'apples-to-apples' comparison because they are quite different tools, I can't really imagine them being interchangeable. The 200mm is certainly very sharp (I have no problem cropping to 100% on the D7100 sensor) and does not seem to have the well-known CA that the 105VR exhibits with contrasty subjects, not that that issue has much practical impact on my images. It is a significantly larger, heavier, slower lens that encourages a different approach from the shorter macros. For what it's worth I personally prefer a shorter focal length for the general macro subjects you describe, I find their perspective more three-dimensional and interesting. I use the 200mm for butterflies and such. I don't see the point of comparing a 60mm lens with a 200mm lens, these are different focal lengths in macro photography as in other photography.

Click to expand...

Have you used the two lenses on FX?

Bernard Delley · May 22, 2015

It would be really interesting to know what various options and price points can achieve. I am very curious how lenses compare that I may never own like the APO Lanthar, Printing Nikkor, APO EL-Nikkor.

1:1 is an interesting and challenging reproduction ratio because its the end of the range. (for greater reproduction one would use other lenses or reversed lenses). 1:1 is relevant to FF slide reproduction and also for coin imaging.

A standard test that can be performed identically in many places is to photograph with a high rez camera a mac book pro retina screen at 1:1. Careful normal alignment to the screen is important , DoF ~ 0.1 mm ! OOC std jpg image full size.

Example, one of my better current options old EL-Nikkor 105mm f5.6 (non-APO ) at f/11

Mac Retina screen with D800 bellows EL-Nikkor 105 f/5.6 at f/11 approximately 1:1 reproduction

Bernard Delley · May 22, 2015

100% did upload, but generates errors.

So I try 50%, which should be enough tho judge chromatic errors from the color pixel displacements. These are quite small in my example here.

BTW the exi fvalues are partly wrong.

at 50%

mistymornings · May 22, 2015

Both 85mm and 45mm will focus to half life size. I love them both for close up photography, but use a macro lens when closer focus is required e.g. for flowers.

Best macro lens for D810?

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts