Nikon 105 Micro 2.8 AiS

Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,727
Location
So Fla
any thoughts.opinions. on this lens is appreciated

thinking I might want longer than the 55mms I have been looking at

pic examples of any kind would be great
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
1,706
Location
New Zealand
For some reason I skipped this lens. I have the older AIS 105/4, and the AF 105/2.8.

The AIS 105/4 micro only goes to 1:2, same as the AIS 105.2,8 micro, but is a stop slower. On the other hand it lacks CRC so there is no focal length shortening at close range, and it has more working distance at close range than modern 105mm micros. The 105/4 also has a very deep and effective built-in hood, the 105/2.8 requires a separate clip-on hood.

The AIS 105/2.8 micro can get greater than 1:1 when the PN-11 tube is used, but for magnifications just beyond 1:2, the lens is "focused" near infinity and CRC is not well optimized for close range shots. Nikon recommend stopping well down to control field curvature. There are a scale engraved on the barrel giving the recommended f-numbers when the PN-11 is used. For shots just over 1:2 it is better to use a shorter tube instead with the lens racked further out so the lens is better optimised.
When used without tubes, the lens has a reputation for being very sharp at infinity, not quite as good closeup, but that's a good compromise since you normally stop down at close range anyway.

I use the AF 105/2.8 micro for higher magnification work since it goes directly to 1:1 without extension tubes. It has a shorter working distance than the 105/4 (or 105/2.8) but that's fine at higher magnifications.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,727
Location
So Fla
thanks Roland

so it sounds like the AF 2.8 or AiS F4 are better lenses
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
1,706
Location
New Zealand
so it sounds like the AF 2.8 or AiS F4 are better lenses
Depends what you want. The AIS 105/2.8 is relatively compact, and if you don't need more than 1:2 magnifications it would be a great short tele with built-in macro.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,727
Location
So Fla
Hi Robert

I had a 105 2.5 and it is sweet
I am debating a macro choice now
was gonna get a 55 3.5, now thinking 105mm might be a better FL

I also like the 105 1.8 AiS, but not a macro either

Roland.
I usually shoot flowers and the occassional dragon, butterfly
so 1:1 is not that necessary
 

VPT

Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
454
Location
Terra Ceia, Florida.
any thoughts.opinions. on this lens is appreciated

thinking I might want longer than the 55mms I have been looking at

pic examples of any kind would be great

It is the best manual focus macro lens. It only goes to 1:2 and requires the PN-11 to go to 1:1. I think you won't regret buying it.

Here's a couple I've taken with mine.

Nikon D70 + 105/2.8 AIS micro. 1/250s f/2.8
102097562.gif
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Nikon D2Xs + 105/2.8 AIS micro + TC-201 2x + M2 Extension tube. 1/250s f/8
View attachment 242596
 

VPT

Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
454
Location
Terra Ceia, Florida.
Nikon D2Xs + 105/2.8 AIS micro + TC-201 2x + M2 Extension tubes. 1/250s f/8
84792491.gif
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,727
Location
So Fla
nice Vinh
very alien like
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
34
Location
Texas
I love my 105 2.8 AIS... It's only 1:2, but tubes can take care of that.

D300/105mm 2.8 AIS
267011633_64yJ9-L.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


338809376_WUUYT-L.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
517
Location
Canada
VPT, Mflech......
that is stupid sick... ***!!!! wow I am right now totally blown away... :eek: I love those pics....
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
623
Location
South of Chicago
I have owned and used both the 105 AIS and the 105 AFD Micro Nikkors. I can tell you that the AFD was the better lens. Less flare and more contrast.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
any others ?
any non-macro shots out there ?

Landscape perhaps? D200 & AIS 105/2.8 @ f/2.8.

2703938858_ffb9f72c5a_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
A non-macro flower shot @ f/5.6.

2500853273_517ea168a7_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,727
Location
So Fla
thanks Peter

the more I read, it seems the AF of AFD lens has better contrast and coatings to the AiS lens
so if I go the 105mm route, that seems to be the one...

for now.....................................
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
1,706
Location
New Zealand
One disadvantage of the AF 105 micro is that the bokeh is rather poor - it renders foregrounds more smoothly that the background, when it would be better the other way round.

You might also want to consider some third party macro lenses. If you prefer manual focus, the Tokina 90/2.5 macro (goes to 1:2, and 1:1 with dedicated extender), Lester-Dine 105/2.8 (goes to 1:1 with two turns of the focus ring) and Tamron 90mm macro get good reviews, and there are plenty of threads on AF alternatives.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,727
Location
So Fla
thanks Roland

I was actually reading about the bokeh today on the AF lens and that turned me off
so back to my analysis paralysis

OT, btw Roland

any experience with the 135/2 AiS ?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
1,706
Location
New Zealand
thanks Roland

I was actually reading about the bokeh today on the AF lens and that turned me off
so back to my analysis paralysis
The Tamron AF 90/2.8 is universally praised for good sharpness and bokeh. Build is a bit plasticy but it does not seem to be a problem.
I've also heard good reports about the new Tokina 100/2.8 macro. Like other Tokinas, build is very good and performance is good also, but CA is not as well controlled as others. It would be worth checking the reviews at photozone.de.

OT, btw Roland
any experience with the 135/2 AiS ?
No, but there were some threads by Paul.r.lindqvist on this lens a while ago.
I do have the AIS 135/2.8 which is a fine lens if you don't need the extra stop. Sharpness and bokeh are quite good and the lens is quite small. I feel it works best at medium distances. I have used it for landscapes at infinity and it never quite seemed to have the sharpness I was looking for, but maybe I'm being too critical as it does render a good amount of detail. At extreme close range I think it gets a bit softer, but bokeh improves, which on balance makes it great for portraits - by all accounts the 135/2 behaves similarly.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
462
Location
Kingsville, Ohio
This has been the sharpest lens in my bag for years, until picking up an 85 f/1.4. It's a great bargain and you really don't need AF for macro work. A tube takes care of the 1:2 issue, less of an issue with DX cameras.
Buy it and enjoy it. And it is built like a tank yet very compact.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom