|
論壇主選單 >
器材版 >
新版的105mm MacroVR對macro攝影很有用
|
|
|
作者
|
討論話題
|
網路會員
|
new micro-nikkor 105: VR works well for macro I have seen skeptical posts on dpreview on the effectiveness of VR for macro shots, in complete contradiction with my own experience with the 80-400VR+Canon 500D close-up in the field. A french guy had actually the opportunity to try the new AF-S 105 VR, and he posted his impressions on his site (in french) with some examples shot handheld at slow shutter speeds: http://simpho.free.fr/forum/vr105.html http://simpho.free.fr/forum/vr105_2.html His initial impression is that VR helps a lot, even close to 1:1 magnification. He said that most images he took were simply impossible without VR. Another really interesting point is that the AF was really fast with his D2Hs, fast enough in continuous AF-C to compensate for translational (subject to lens) motion !! Wow, if this holds true, I think Nikon has a real winner here :) Pierre http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=17684773His initial impression is that VR helps a lot, even close to 1:1 magnification. He said that most images he took were simply impossible without VR. 此君認為防震功能在近距離近到1:1的範圍還是有用的.
推薦者: adammfc, cc5, chinphoto, 葉0503, daniel0211, Raywang123, 黑松, ko440301
|
網路會員
| |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
|
Re: 105VR is awesome. If you had to pick between the 60mm and the 105mm VR what would it be? Michelle wrote: > These other lenses are perfectly nice. In fact, the Nikon 60mm is > a gem. > > However, I can't go on and on enough about the 105mm VR. > > Pictures taken without flash take on a whole new character. You > really get on wonderfully without a tripod, which for living things > is rarely convenient. The quality is just superb. It's smooth and > fast and sharp. Leave it on your camera and shoot the kids playing > soccer - no problem. Ditto for nice portraits, with outstanding > bokeh too. Check it out. > > Michelle > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20329384&q=105mm+vr&qf=mRe: 105VR is awesome. Chubly wrote: > If you had to pick between the 60mm and the 105mm VR what would it be? > Well, I'd still pick the 105VR. However, that's NOT because I think it's any sharper than the 60, because frankly I don't think it is. It's just that I like the longer reach and I like to photograph insects and it is rarely practical to set up a tripod in those circumstances. My 'keeper' insect shots have increased exponentially since getting the 105VR. I'm very pleased and impressed with the lens. Michelle http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20343810 |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
|
AF-D Micro 105mm vs. 105VR sharpness To those who actually used both lenses: I currently own the AF-D Version which is my most used lens. Although my 60mm Micro Nikkor is a little bit sharper I prefer the 105 for its working distance. I think about upgrading to the VR Version because I hope that it gives me the same sharpness than the 60mm Micro plus the working distance of the 105. Hence my question if the IQ of the new Version is really better than the AF-D. I also read in the review at popphoto.com that the actual magnificaton of the VR is actually 1:0.7 and not 1:1 which would be a great thing if it is actually true. Can anyone who has used the lens confirm this? Regards Fritz http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20472370Re: AF-D Micro 105mm vs. 105VR sharpness First - I have never shot with the 105/2.8 AF-D - just the 60/2.8 AFD and the newer 105 VR. The 105 VR is a better lens than the 60 for a few reasons: a) it's sharp at infinity (the 60 really isn't that spectacular) b) the contrast and color characteristcs are far better c) the bokeh is better (note, the 60 is not a bad lens, but the 105/2.8 VR is using more advanced optical technologies and I think the results show up) Sharpness wise, they are pretty close when used close up - both are quite sharp lenses. If I were to hazard a guess to how it compares to the older 105, I'd probably guess that the contrast/color character would be better on the newer lens. There *is* more than just sharpness. As noted earlier, some folks think the 105 AFD might have had a slight bit of better sharpness on the edges up close. I've also read multiple reports that feel the newer lens is better at infinity. A tough call - most all macro lenses are quite sharp up close - so the question is more which of the other lens characteristics are important to you. Again, I'm sorry I don't have the 105/2.8 AF-D to compare -m http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20486903Re: AF-D Micro 105mm vs. 105VR sharpness I have not used the lens, but you may be interested in these reviews: 105 VR http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/351/cat/6 105 AF-D http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/102/cat/12 -- LeftSpin http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20487751Re: AF-D Micro 105mm vs. 105VR sharpness TheFritz wrote: > Hence my question if the IQ of the new Version is really better > than the AF-D. I'm not really qualified, since I only own the 105VR and haven't used the other two (though I used to own the original Tamron SP90). There are lots of examples of image quality for all of these lenses out on the web - these may help make your mind up on IQ. As a separate (but for me equally important) factor, I find the 105 VR very big and pretty heavy for this class of lens. An earlier poster mentioned the Tamron 90mm - that is almost half the weight and certainly smaller. For people who always use their macro lens on a tripod, maybe that doesn't matter. However you also mention using for general purpose photography - that's where I think the "thow everything in it" design approach that Nikon seem to have used here maybe loses something. -- Colin Malsingh http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20487743 general macro lenses impressions here are my impressions for these lenses on a Nikon body. I did shoot with all these lenses, sometimes only a few days and sometimes many years. Note that these remarks hold for close up work only, several lenses are worse performers when shooting distant subjects. - micro Nikkor 60: very sharp lens (less sharp at distance), good (but not exceptional) bokeh for a 60mm, very poor working distance (close to zero at 1:1), better IQ on film than digital. - Tamron 90 DI: sharpest lens ever for digital bodies, very nice ring for |
網路會員
|
general macro lenses impressions here are my impressions for these lenses on a Nikon body. I did shoot with all these lenses, sometimes only a few days and sometimes many years. Note that these remarks hold for close up work only, several lenses are worse performers when shooting distant subjects. - micro Nikkor 60: very sharp lens (less sharp at distance), good (but not exceptional) bokeh for a 60mm, very poor working distance (close to zero at 1:1), better IQ on film than digital. - Tamron 90 DI: sharpest lens ever for digital bodies, very nice ring for manual focusing, looks not sturdy at first sight but I never had a problem with that lens, very good lens IMO. - Sigma 105, two samples: first copy was definitely soft wide open, the second was a bit better, chromatic aberrations are visible, becomes as good as the competitors at f5.6-f8. - 80-400 VR + Canon 500D close up: a heavy combination for a very long working distance, excellent combination for macros of insects, sharp at f8-f11, very versatile and practical in the field. - micro Nikkor 105 AF-D: good IQ but not exceptional, traces of chromatic aberrations, the worst micro Nikkor in my opinion. - micro Nikkor 105 AF-S VR: I was lucky enough to receive this lens the first day of its introduction here in Switzerland. Very sharp both at close up and at distance, very crisp images, superb bokeh. This is the first lens that allows me to use AF for macro work. AF can hunt sometimes, but after a few days of practice I am able now to lock AF 99% of the times (I first lock AF on the subject at ~1:10 magnification ratio and than progressively shorten the distance in continuous AF). VR works well and I can manage critically sharp images at ~1/60 at 1:1 with this lens (compared to ~1/250 with the 105 AF-D). A dream lens if you shoot handheld. However, I do not recomment this lens if you use a tripod because framing changes when focusing the lens. Examples that I posted here a few months ago: ghost, flare and bokeh with the 105 AF-S VR: general IQ of the 105 VR: In summary, with regard to your original question, my personal opinion is that IQ of the new 105 AF-S VR is definitively better than the old 105 AF-D, and equal to the 60 micro (if not better if mounted on a DSLR). Hope this helps. Happy macro :) Pierre http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20493472 |
網路會員
|
Best Macro lens for bugs? ..or flowers. Is it the 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor, the Sigma 150 or another contender? Bug hunters: Which is best? Issues: 1. 105 Nikkor has VR; can one reliably hold the 150 steady enough like Claypaws does? 2. Scare-bug-away-factor: Sigma has longer reach. Is Nikkor long enough not to scare the bug away? 3. Lens optical quality 4. Is the UltraSonic focus of the Sigma up to the Nikkor's AF-S Standards? I presently have a 50mm macro, but by the time you get close enough to the bug to almost fill the frame, it is likely to be scared away. Does the 100mm solve this issue or do I need the 150? (For use on DSLR with 1.5 crop factor) Comments anyone? Thanks. -- Thom-- http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20319082 Re: Best Macro lens for bugs? The 200mm F4 micro nikkor is the best macro lens for bugs as it gives you the longest working distance. -- http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20320294105 VR is my choice I like the Nikon 105 mm f2.8 VR because it works so well with the R1C1 macro flash. maljo http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20320595 |
網路會員
|
105VR is awesome. These other lenses are perfectly nice. In fact, the Nikon 60mm is a gem. However, I can't go on and on enough about the 105mm VR. Pictures taken without flash take on a whole new character. You really get on wonderfully without a tripod, which for living things is rarely convenient. The quality is just superb. It's smooth and fast and sharp. Leave it on your camera and shoot the kids playing soccer - no problem. Ditto for nice portraits, with outstanding bokeh too. Check it out. Michelle http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20327272 |
網路會員
|
Re: 105VR is awesome Chubly wrote: > If you had to pick between the 60mm and the 105mm VR what would it be? > Well, I'd still pick the 105VR. However, that's NOT because I think it's any sharper than the 60, because frankly I don't think it is. It's just that I like the longer reach and I like to photograph insects and it is rarely practical to set up a tripod in those circumstances. My 'keeper' insect shots have increased exponentially since getting the 105VR. I'm very pleased and impressed with the lens. Michelle http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20343810 |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
|
Macro: 105mm VR + 500D ? Has anyone tried to stack a Canon 500D in front of the 105 micro VR? If yes, what magnification can you achieve with those combos? Do you have any samples? I am looking for a way to get in the 2:1 - 3:1 territory. I already have the 500D which I use on my 70-200VR (mag=1:1.6) and I'm wondering if getting a 105mm micro will get me where I want. AB -- http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=19929173 Re: Macro: 105mm VR + 500D ? A better option would be to reverse mount a 28mm on to your 105. You will get more than 3:1 maginification. Or cheaper yet, reverse mount a 50mm to 105 and get a little more than 2:1 magnification. -- http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=19930404 |
網路會員
|
My experience with this lens > Do any of you guys and gals have experience of using the Nikon 105 > VR for nature macros and can vouch for its use in helping stabalise > the picture whilst trying to use the third option above? Darrin, I shot with this lens two weeks and posted a little write up here, including a set of images from my outings with the lens. Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=18896052 Here's a link to the section that deals specifically with VR: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=18896119 In short, VR does work, and it works quite well for low magnification images. As magnification increases, camera movement becomes increasingly problematic, not to mention any movement from the subject (for which VR will obviously not correct). I found VR most useful at semi-marginal shutterspeeds (say, 1/80 to 1/160) at magnification up to around half life-size. Anything more taxing requires lots of patience. However, if you have the time, VR can produce rewarding results at even more interesting light levels. Todd Here are a few samples. VR was used in most of these images, as it was for the majority of the samples in the above write up. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20416033&q=105mm+vr&qf=m |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
|
Nikon 105 VR micro + TC-17E II test pics I used to have 60mm. f/2.8 micro until I've replaed it with the new 105 VR micro. I can not say that I'm more satisfied with this new toy and keep trying it to convince myself that I've made a good choice. Here three of my test photos you might find usefull. 1st one is taken with just plain 105 VR lens, 2nd one is with 105 VR + Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set 12 + 20 + 36mm. And the final one is with 105 VR + Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set 12 + 20 + 36mm. + Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x Teleconverter. Just to remind you that the purpose of this test was to see how close I can get to a subject. It seems with the final combination, I can get as close as ~15cm. and I believe ~4:1 magnification. Check it out. All shots are manual focus. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20615072 |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
| |
網路會員
|
200 Micro - 105VR Shootout I have had the 200mm f4D AF Micro Nikkor for a couple of years now and it has been a really fun and sharp lens. It is heavy and difficult to take hiking so it stayed home quite often. I just bought the 105VR Micro Nikkor with the idea of building a ligher weight hiking kit that would include the Sigma 10-20, 45p, 105VR and a 1.7TC II for a little more reach. The 200 Micro Nikkor is very sharp (probalby a little sharper than my 70-200VR) and I did not want to compromise that, so I did a very unscientific shootout between the 105 and the 200. I want to sell the 200 to finance another lens but I needed to be convinced that the 105 could replace it. A couple of caveats: - This is totally uncontrolled - just like a field session always is. - I really wanted the 105 to win but I really love my 200. - For the macros I used a tripod and turned off the VR and manual focused both lenses. - Shot with a D2X RAW and PP in PS - Don't use the results of this to test to make a purchase decision, do your own testing. Here are some details and the samples: First Sample - I wanted to maintain the same image size so the 105 shot was taken about 6" from the seed and the 200 was about 12" Shots were different f stops due to the characteristics of macros when you approach the minimum close focus difference. 200mm was 1/500 at f5 105mm was 1/640 at f4.8 Focus point was at the base of the seed where all of the fronds meet. A PP was the same for both images, sharpen and curves. 200mm Micro Nikkor full frame image 200 Micro Nikkor 100% Crop 105VR full frame image 105VR 100% crop Comments - I was surprised by the CA that the 105 produced compared to the 200. Of couse, since I was twice as close with the 105 I also had to twist the branch to get a similar perspective so this may have created a different reflection and higher CA. DOF is also less on the 105 because of the closer focus and slightly larger f stop (like 1/64" less!) Here is another sample (100% crops only) with the same setup as above but smaller aperature. 200mm 1/200 at f8 105mm 1/200 at f7.1 (the lenses meter a little differently I think) Comments - Very close here, again, the 105 has a shallower DOF because it is twice as close. If you go to 200% you can also see more specular chroma noise (CA?), very surprising when you consider that the 200 is an older element design without the Nano Crystal blah blah blah. Good marketing Nikon but.....? Here is a couple of B&W's shot from 10' with the 105 and 20' with the 200. 200mm 1/320 at f9 105mm 1/350 at f9.5 (lens meters different I'm pretty sure) Comments - I really like the shallower DOF and OOF characteristics of the 200. The working distance of the 200 is a little wierd on the digital bodies but like I said, it is a fun lens. The 105VR will probably win you more shots, especially when you use it in the non-macro mode. As I was shooting both, the 105VR with VR on was sharper for hand held shots as I was walking around. I had to put the 200 on a tripod to get the same sharpness. This fits in nicely with my plan to carry it as a short tele and macro for longer hiking trips. Will I get rid of the 200? Well, my wife will divorce me if I buy that 200-400VR without selling some of my old lenses. I am really going to miss my wife. Here is one from this morning with the 105 50% crop. Let me know if you have any questions, I'll be happy to help. -- Steve http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20745063 |
|
|
