"The worst performer by far was the Nikon lens..."

Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
2,236
Beagledog's orchid shots were made on a D850!
I personally think the guy had something funky going on and was just referring to the specific LenRental link as debunking his findings.
Shots such as BeagleDog's do debunk his findings but not the old LensRental test in this case.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
1,811
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Just setting the context straight, it seems that the LensRental test was from 2012 and the point the new guy was making was that perhaps the Nikkor is not up to dealing with new HiRes sensors due to its age.
Actually, the initial article by Mr. Cicala was “about what lenses can wring the most resolution out of a D800 when you need every ounce of resolution.” The follow-up that Beagledog pointed us to was about the results from the test that puzzled Mr. Cicala regarding the 105 2.8 micro lens. As Mr. Cicala stated “I have shot with the lens a lot. It was excellent on the D3x. I shot it on the D800 and it appeared to be an excellent Macro lens. The real world didn’t seem to agree with the Imatest results.” That was the context.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
8,207
Location
Maple Bay, Duncan, BC, Canada
Real Name
Andreas Berglund
Well first of all, now why would you test a macro lens at F2.8, especially when focusing very close to the front element?

As for my 105mm VR lens, I hated it on my D2X and D3, but on my D800e and now the D850 it is really a very excellent and sharp lens, that btw takes both a tc14eII and tc17eII very well.

As for tests I think Robert Cicala, is the one guy I would trust to get it right
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,225
Location
Melbourne - Australia
Well first of all, now why would you test a macro lens at F2.8, especially when focusing very close to the front element?
I wonder how they did that with the Nikkor lens. Depending on how close they got to 1:1 they would likely be at f/5.6 effective aperture. I’m sure the Sony body didn’t report effective aperture.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
I won a macro competition (flowers) with this one in the USA with the Nikon D700.

It was really - really - good up to and including approx. 10 meters - beyond 10 meters only average, but it is also a macro lens.
Of course You do not shoot macro at f. 2.8
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,276
Location
GA
I think the point of these "tests" is to show you don't need to spend a lot of money to get a good macro lens. I've shot with the $100 ebay special and up including the Tamron 90, Nikon 105 and Sigma 150. You'd have to hunt long and hard to find flaws in any of them when comparing them side-by-side.

You have to understand the scale of "better" here too. On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is the best, if the best was 9.2 and the worst was 8.7, the difference is negligible and not even worth measuring.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
539
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
ONE lens of each is not a valid sample size to draw a conclusion about the lenses in general.
You can only draw a conclusion about the specific lenses that was tested.

So as was mentioned, sample variation is a very real issue, with a sample size of ONE.
  • Did he get a bad copy.
  • Since it is an old lens, is it a used lens or a new lens. I presume new.
This is an issue with most gear reviews. They only test a sample size of ONE, and are thus subject to the issues of sample variation.

Since he was comparing the other lenses on a Sony, why did he not also use the Nikon on the Sony?
But then he would have to deal with the issues of a Nikon to Sony adapter. Though that is the same issue as using the Canon on the Sony.​
In general, I would suspect any mixed combination, as subject to the quality of the adapter and how the three different brand items (camera, adapter and lens) worked together.​
Did he verify that the Nikon setup was focusing at its best? IOW, was the combination front or back focusing just a tiny amount?
The Nikon, like all dSLRS, is not using the actual image sensor to AF with. So there is the possibility that the AF on the Nikon was not at it's best.​
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,978
Location
vancouver, canada
ONE lens of each is not a valid sample size to draw a conclusion about the lenses in general.
You can only draw a conclusion about the specific lenses that was tested.

So as was mentioned, sample variation is a very real issue, with a sample size of ONE.
  • Did he get a bad copy.
  • Since it is an old lens, is it a used lens or a new lens. I presume new.
This is an issue with most gear reviews. They only test a sample size of ONE, and are thus subject to the issues of sample variation.

Since he was comparing the other lenses on a Sony, why did he not also use the Nikon on the Sony?
But then he would have to deal with the issues of a Nikon to Sony adapter. Though that is the same issue as using the Canon on the Sony.​
In general, I would suspect any mixed combination, as subject to the quality of the adapter and how the three different brand items (camera, adapter and lens) worked together.​
Did he verify that the Nikon setup was focusing at its best? IOW, was the combination front or back focusing just a tiny amount?
The Nikon, like all dSLRS, is not using the actual image sensor to AF with. So there is the possibility that the AF on the Nikon was not at it's best.​

Excellent points!!!

With regards to your final comment about the AF adjustment being needed. My 105 macro (sample size 1) needs a +20 Adjustment to the focus. Without focus adjustment the lens would no be sharp. With proper adjustment the lens is very sharp.

A result based on one sample is meaningless to determine what the actual results are. It simply tells what that particular lens is like. That is why I like Rodger Cicala of Lens Rentals reviews he uses a sample size of 10 typically. So he has good statistics.

Cheers,
alexis and Georgie Beagle

"the Poisson distribution has an sd of the square root of the mean. the square root of 1 is 1... just saying..." Georgie Beagle
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
1,364
Location
UK
Quote "For the sake of consistency, all of the lenses were tested on a 42MP Sony a7R II, with the exception of the Nikon lens, which was tested on a 45MP Nikon Z7" unquote

there lies the answer ,a totally unfair test , what an***** , Unbelievable. Any like for like test has to be done on the same equipment- same settings and same conditions- same age within reason. Hope no one takes any notice of his findings. Obviously doesn't realise either you can get good or bad copies in any make of camera lens
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,094
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
I am sorry I am a little late on this one. I have never used the 105 mm VR Micro lens. this is the first negative report I see on it. I still use the 105 f4 of the 80's and it is sharp and fulfill my needs.
I have nevr used the Tamron 90 mm f2.8 but I have images made with it and those images were sharp as tack. For portraits it is also a superb performer.
I have learned to not trust all reviews I see in the Net.
 

Latest posts

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
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom