The Nikkor Micro 105mm f/2.8 AF-D is the latest addition to my bag. It turned out to be a very useful purchase indeed.
 

When you take an image with a normal lens, the image itself is usually smaller than the real thing. For example, a Porsche may measure 10 feet in reality, but it is only inches on your negative. So the object's image is reduced to fit onto the negative.

When you take close-ups of flowers using your 70-300 zoom, it is technically not really macro/micro photography. You're merely going closer than usual. Macro photography is when you take pictures of objects at life-size and bigger.
 
 

Life-size means that the image of the object on the negative is exactly the same size as the real object. If you lay the negative of the image over the real object, you'd get a perfect overlapping register. So a life-size image of a twenty-cents coin will barely fit into a 35mm frame.

Life-size is denoted by the symbol 1:1. The first number signifies the image size, and the second number signifies the image size. So twice the magnification means that the image is actually bigger than the object, and is denoted by 2:1. A third life-size is when the image is half the size of the real object, denoted by 1:3.
 

Examples:
 

1:1	Life size
2:1	Image twice the size of the real object
1:3	Image one third of the size of real object

Most lenses are able to reach 1:3 size, which means the image is 1/3 the size of the real object. Some of the modern zooms like the Sigma APO 70-300 f/4-5.6 can go up to 1/2 size, and even life-size with adaptors. The specifications on the advertisements and boxes will tell you these information.

Note: when I say image size, I refer to the size of the image on the negative, not the prints !!! Of course you can print the image as big as you like, but we're talking about negative size here !!
 
 

Why a focal length of 105mm?

Most macro lenses come in 3 standard configurations: a) 50mm, b) 90/105mm and c) 200mm. Why did I choose the 105mm over the other two focal lengths ? Let's start with the 50mm.
 

Most 50mm single-focal length lenses are quite fast in aperture. It is common to find a new 50mm f/1.8 AF for a price of $180. A macro 50mm costs around $400, which is slightly more than double the price. And the macro 50mm has a aperture of f/2.8 or f/3.5, which is one or more stops of light loss than a normal 50mm lens. The biggest advantages of the normal 50mm lens is the price and fast aperture. The macro version eliminates both these advantages outright.
 

Moreover, the working distance of the 50mm macro is too close. To attain a closeup of 1:1 lifesize with the macro 50mm, you'd need to approach the subject with a distance of around 20cm. What this translates into is inflexibility in lighting. You are too close to the subject to use different types of lighting. Most of the time, you'd be blocking the light falling on the subject. And if your subject is insects or small animals, the close distance will either cause them to flee or provoke them into attacking you. Or perhaps, attack you first, and then flee !!
 

The 200mm is a great lens, if you have the cash. Most 200mm macro lenses offer 1:2 reproduction scale, although the new 200mm micro-Nikkor AF does offer a 1:1 reproduction. The working distance is around 50cm or more. However, the maximum aperture is usually limited to f/4 or less. Moreover, the price of the 200mm macros is usually quite steep, around S$1000. If you're working with animals or insects and need a longer working distance, this focal length is invaluable. However, if you are not, you'd do better to reconsider spending so much on a macro lens.
 

The 105mm offers the best compromise between working distance and price. You can expect to pay around S$850 for a new 105mm macro lens, or about $600 for a second hand one. The working distance of the Micro 105mm is about 35 cm at 1:1 magnification. Many portrait photographers use lenses of 105/135mm as portrait lenses. The 105mm Micro fits into this category very nicely. Nikon produces 3 lenses of the 105/135mm focal length, all which are specialty lenses and not too cheap !! One is this micro lens, the other two are their specialty "DC" (Defocus Control) lenses. The DC lenses are special lenses with built-in diffusion control for that soft-focus effects (through controlled spherical aberration). They are very expensive, costing more than $1000. I chose the 105 Micro because it doubles up as a close-up lens and a portrait lens (and the price too !!!). Most other 105mm lenses offer a aperture of f/2 or f/2.8, so I do not lose much by getting the Micro 105 f/2.8.

Features
 

The Micro-Nikkor 105mm AF has 52mm filter ring size, so your filters will not cost too much. It has a limit switch, to limit the focus range. Focusing from infinity to 1:1 is quite a long way, so the limit switch can help to shorten the focusing time by limiting the focus to infinity to 0.4m, rather than all the way to 1:1. This new AF version offers the Nikon "D" (distance) technology, which tells the camera which is the main subject and how far it is, for more accurate exposure determination. Also, the AF versions offer 1:1 reproduction, as compared to the MF version.
 

The Micro 105 has large focusing ring, and has a manual feel to it (see Quirks). It also has a MF/AF ring so that you can switch from AF to MF using the ring. However, the process is quite fiddly as you need to press a button and turn the slim ring. You'd better hold your camera firmly as you do it. However, one major plus point is that it is internal focusing in rge AF mode. The focusing ring does not rotate, thus you have a much larger area to hold your lens.
 

All micro-Nikkors also have CRC (close-range correction), for better performance when focusing both near and far distances. The 105mm micro's recessed front element also makes it unnecessary (IMHO) to use a lens hood. The front element is also non-rotating, so you can use polarizers and graduated filters easily. However, note that the lens extends quite a bit when you go close-in to life-size.

Sharpness
 

I think it is appropriate to say that the lens is too bloody sharp. Why ? Because I could see the blood veins in the portraits I shot with this lens. If you ever use this lens for portraiture, do yourself a favour by using some diffusion device. Or ensure your model has baby smooth skin or stand way back from the face. This lens is extremely sharp (I'm not getting into another argument about which lens is sharper; that's childish). If you're using it for macro photography (for flowers, insects etc), you'll appreciate the sharpness of this lens. This lens cannot be faulted for it's sharpness, contrast, colour or resolution. In other words, first-class optics !!

Quirks

The lens does some quirks, although most of them are due to the design of all macro lenses. Like all macro lenses, the focusing ring's throw is too short. You'd only need to turn the focusing ring a bit for a relatively large change in focus. So if you're planning to use this lens in manual focus mode for subjects more than 0.4m away, you'd better get used to the focusing throw. Some people say that such lenses have a lot of "snap", meaning that the image snaps into focus sharply and smartly. So that is actually just an illusion !!
 

Another quirk pertaining to all macro lenses is the change in aperture as you focus closer. As you focus closer, the built in helicoid extension comes into play, extending the lens for the extra magnification. This has the same effect as adding extension tubes. Which means that as you focus closer, you lose more light due to the extension. This leads to a effectively lower aperture value. Now this isn't a problem with modern SLRs, because the smart coupling between the camera and lens actually transmits all this information and the metering systems actually indicate the new values. However, if you're using the macro lens on a older camera with ADR (aperture direct readout) such as the Nikon F3, you'll be grossly underexposing if you did not take the extension into consideration (in Manual mode). Again, this is not the fault of this lens, just a design feature of all macro lenses.
 

The aperture ring has a mushy feeling to it. It does not click smartly into position like other lenses I own. The actual performance is fine though. The aperture stops down and opens up like it should. But the mushy feeling is quite irritating, and you could easily change the settings without yourself knowing, due to the lack of tactile feedback without distinctive "clicks". This is just a small point though.
 
 

Modern zoom lenses Vs. macro lens
 

As I mentioned earlier, some of the newer zoom lenses from Tamron (eg. 28-200mm) or Sigma APO zooms (e.g. 70-300mm) are capable of attaining 1:2 magnification, and 1:1 with a accessory close-up filter. If they're that good, and if they cost lower than a micro Nikkor, why on earth should I pay so much for the Nikkor ??

Because of flexibility. Most zooms which claim to have macro mode can only engage the pseudo macro mode at the long end. I used to have the Sigma zoom, and the macro mode was most impressive to me at that time. You could easily attain 1:2 enlargement, but only at 300mm. What this means is that you have to zoom the lens all the way out to 300mm, then engage the macro-mode switch to focus down to 1:2. The whole setup becomes fiddly, and the working distance is way too far to be flexible. The quality is quite good, though it's nowhere like the micro Nikkor. However, if you do not need macro lens frequently, the zooms are very good buys. Just five years ago, these zoom lenses would not have been possible at all !!
 

Nikon or Third-Party Lenses?

Recently, a flood of third-party manufacturers introduced a series of high-quality macro lenses. Tamron released the 1:1 version of the 90mm f/2.8 Macro, and Sigma revealed its 105mm f/2.8 Macro EX. They are priced at around 2/3 the price of the Nikon, and the optical quality according to magazine tests (if you actually believe those tests) are comparable to the Nikon. So should you buy them instead of the original Micro Nikkor ?

Personally, I feel that the Micro-Nikkor offers more than unparalleled optics. None of its competitors are as well built, and there is the issue of lens compatibility problems with the newer bodies. I'm not saying that there are problems, but it is a well-known fact that third-party manufacturer lenses sometimes do not work well with the more advanced bodies, especially with newer models like the Canon EOS-3, and need to be refitted with new chips before they can work. Nikon has fewer compatibility problems, but they still exists. Moreover, only time can tell if the new Sigma EX-series exhibit the fogging problem that plagued the previous Sigma lenses. Of course, a Nikkor always retain its second-hand value better than third-party lenses.

I'd say... go for the original if you can afford it.

Post questions on forum  

E-mail comments to author