The new 105mm micro-Nikkor

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by cjcampbell, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. cjcampbell

    cjcampbell Guest

    Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much
    this gem is going to cost?
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    $800, supposedly.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. cjcampbell

    cjcampbell Guest

    That seems reasonable. Since it will be released in April, I wonder
    when I will actually be able to buy one? :)
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 22, 2006
    #3
  4. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Well, it's Nikon, so, probably sometime in November. :)
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 22, 2006
    #4
  5. cjcampbell

    cjcampbell Guest

    Works for me. I won't be getting back to the US of A until then anyway.
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 22, 2006
    #5
  6. I don't see the point at 1:1 you should be on a tripod as DOF is pretty
    shallow.
     
    Darrell Larose, Feb 22, 2006
    #6
  7. cjcampbell

    corks Guest

    VR ??????
     
    corks, Feb 22, 2006
    #7
  8. cjcampbell

    Jan Böhme Guest

    Bugs don't take directing all that well. And you like to have all the
    shutter time you can if you have the aperture at 32 or so to get a
    reasonable DOF. Ob course it won't prevent subject motion blur, but
    sometimes the critters atcually take it easy for half a second or so.

    Jan Böhme
     
    Jan Böhme, Feb 22, 2006
    #8
  9. cjcampbell

    tomm42 Guest

    I often photograph eye surgery, been using a Medical Nikkor ( a 120mm
    macro with its own AC flash system). The OR put in new lights that over
    power the flash. So now I shoot at 1/160 at f16 or 22. VR would be
    nice. Also the Medical Nikkor is meant to be used with flash and isn't
    that controlable without flash (the fstops are controls by focus
    distance). I was going to buy a 105 anyway, this one ould make a lot of
    sense. One question, does the VR operate with an AF telextender, like
    the Nikon 1.4x.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Feb 22, 2006
    #9
  10. cjcampbell

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yes VR works fine on the 70-200 VR with a teleconverter. It probably
    won't work with extension rings though. And you will need the special
    AF-S teleconverter (not regular AF).
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 22, 2006
    #10
  11. cjcampbell

    tomm42 Guest

    Teleconverters are great in macro photography, they not only increase
    you focal length but also your magnification. Best example is the Nikon
    200 micro, the original model they designed it to internally focus to
    1:2 magnification. Instead of having massive extension tubes to get it
    to 1:1 they used a 2x teleconverter (TC301 which now sells for $600)
    This gave the lens a 1:1 capability but also made it a 400 (f8) at
    infinity. Great surgical photography lens because with the converter
    you are working at the same distance for a 1:1 mag shot as you were
    without the converter at 1:2.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Feb 22, 2006
    #11
  12. cjcampbell

    Paul Furman Guest

    I've got a 2x AF-S converter so that would be awesome if it performed
    well with this new lens. Add my +2 diopter & it would be 4:1 (I think).
    I use that arrangement on the 70-200 but it has too many reflections so
    can make a pretty poor image sometimes, plus the bokeh goes bad & edge
    sharpness is screwed. This new macro has better anti-reflection coatings
    so that might work OK.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 22, 2006
    #12
  13. You gave me something to look forward to! I'm hoping that the new 105mm
    lens will work with the TC-20E II. Now that would be a great bonus since I
    already have one.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Damn, we're thinking alike! I just shot a message out with the same thought
    about the same time you did.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 22, 2006
    #14
  15. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    According to Nikon's specs it will work, but it won't autofocus. Though the
    lack of autofocus might be a bit pessimistic -- the aperture should be big
    enough at non-macro distances for AF to work, though not when close up. So
    they may just be saying that to cover themselves. They do say that VR will
    work, though.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 22, 2006
    #15
  16. cjcampbell

    cjcampbell Guest

    Vibration Reduction, since Image Stabilization was already taken and
    trademarked by a competing company. :)
     
    cjcampbell, Feb 23, 2006
    #16
  17. cjcampbell

    zeitgeist Guest

    Looks like a nice lens, complete with VR, but does anyone know how much
    Bugs don't take directing all that well. And you like to have all the
    shutter time you can if you have the aperture at 32 or so to get a
    reasonable DOF. Ob course it won't prevent subject motion blur, but
    sometimes the critters atcually take it easy for half a second or so.
    ****************************************************************************
    *****

    put bug in refrigerator for about 15 or 20 minutes, place where you want it,
    you have about 5 to 10 minutes before it warms up again...
     
    zeitgeist, Feb 23, 2006
    #17
  18. Interesting. That still sounds encouraging. Do you have a link to this
    article? From what I understand the problem with using a TC-20E II with
    lenses (short focal length) that aren't on Nikon's approved lens list is
    there will be damage to both the lens and the TC due to rear lens element
    hitting the TC's front element during focusing. I know if I tried to put my
    current 105mm f/2.8 AFD Micro Nikkor on the 2x TC there will be physical
    damage. If the rear element is recessed deep enough on the new 105mm I
    would say it would work fine. I'm guessing since the 105mm is such a short
    focal length the rear element isn't going to be recessed enough.
    Theoretically (my assumption) since it's a 2.8 the AF should work fine.
    Either way, I will definitely have to get the new 105..







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 23, 2006
    #18
  19. cjcampbell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Er, www.nikonusa.com, look at the specs for the lens. :)
    The point is, it *is* on their approved list. The lens specs specifically
    say that it is compatible.
    Yeah, I'm thinking there may be one in my future as well. I was thinking
    about getting an older 105/4 macro, manual focus, since that seems an all-
    around better choice than the current AF 105 macro, but this one looks like
    it'll blow the doors off the others. And it'll double as a 105 with VR,
    which could be handy as well. I currently have the 60mm macro, which may
    at that point be redundant...
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 23, 2006
    #19
  20. Got it! Thanks! I finally did see the TC-20E II listed in the Optional
    accessories section. This is great.

    I'm curious of where you found information that this lens wouldn't auto
    focus correctly with the 2x TC? I believe it was you that mentioned this?
    This is the part that concerns me.
    You just made my day! I'm excited.

    On a side note, I'm seriously contemplating getting the R1C1 Speedlight
    system. This will/should work great with this new lens. I haven't seen any
    reviews on how well this system works so I'm dragging my feet on this one.
    I did see one of the little flash modules at Ritz ($149 each) and it looks
    pretty nice. They don't have the whole kit at the stores to inspect.
    Spring is just around the corner and I want to be ready. Thanks for all
    your help.









    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 23, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.