Nikon Macro Lens bad??

rookies

rookies

Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Has anyone been let down with the Nikon 105 Macro lens? It not impressing me at the moment to be honest.. I am finding my Cheapo Nikon 50mm 1.8 being a much better len and faster.. don't know why this am i expecting too much out of it...
 
Depends what you are shooting. Presumably not `macro` if you're using the 50mm?

The 50 is F1.8, so it is `faster` than the 105 F2.8.

If you are shooting macro (1:1) then manual focus is usual.

Also the lens might benefit from some manual fine-tuning, if you think sharpness is a bit off & using AF
 
I find the lens really good Andrew

post a few images ....are you using it AF or manual focus?

you will be disappointed with close ups and macros when you first try ...... they take some getting used to
 
Last edited:
What I am trying to say.

When taking pictures of my daughter indoor I have found the macro doesn't focus as quick. It can hunt a bit. The 50 is snappy.

But when I was outside the other day it was good I think as images were sharp.
 
rookies said:
What I am trying to say.

When taking pictures of my daughter indoor I have found the macro doesn't focus as quick. It can hunt a bit. The 50 is snappy.

But when I was outside the other day it was good I think as images were sharp.
Click to expand...

what f value are you using indoors?
 
2.8 of course but doesn't stop at that it goes to 3.2 or 4. Even though am not close to her
 
Portraits. Is what I am comparing them with general use.
 
A macro lens is for shooting tiny objects, I mean you can use it for other things too but its strengths are geared towards macro photography, the 50 isn't any kind of macro lens at all so I doubt it'll be much good for shooting a fly's y fronts like the 105 is.
That said, you ought to be able to get a decent non macro picture out of it. :)
 
BillN_33 said:
that's normal ...... the nearer you get you won't get f2.8 .. it's a macro lens
Click to expand...

I just though it would work the way my canon L macro did but it doesn't. So wondering wether I should of got a 85mm 1.8 instead. But I do like doing macro too but is this lens good at insect pictures without cropping??
 
The 105 has a max F2.8 ......but it is variable depending on available light. The 50mm is faster, it's f1.8.

Also depending on distance from your subject/child, don't automatically presume F2.8 is going to be best. DOF comes into play + also lots of lenses are a tad sharper stopped down 1 or 2 stops.
 
Oh. I wax told it can be good as a portrait lens too so am I miss told ?
 
Stick with the 50mm for indoor shots & the 105 for macro (or outdoors in better light) Which body are you using? (cropped?)
 
Nope using a D750.

Am thinking selling it and get a 85mm 1.8g
 
rookies said:
I just though it would work the way my canon L macro did but it doesn't. So wondering wether I should of got a 85mm 1.8 instead. But I do like doing macro too but is this lens good at insect pictures without cropping??
Click to expand...

No. That is why the term `macro` is used on specific lenses.
 
It's a macro lens so the focus will be slow compared to non-macro lenses. I changed from a Nikon 105 to the Sigma 150 macro and neither would make a lens for action subjects. The Nikon is a good focal length for portraiture and speed of focus should not really matter.
 
Ok think I sell it get a 85mm 1.8 and a cheap macro for odd macros.
 
A few "portraitist" shots with the 105mm

with no real pp adjustments .. just picked them at random from my 105mm shots

Portrait_1.jpg


Portrait_2.jpg


Portrait_3.jpg
Portrait_4.jpg


Portrait_5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hmm impressive there. Whst was settings for 1st and 3rd pls

Shame u not nearby otherwise I'll tog along and get some tips
 
rookies said:
Hmm impressive there. Whst was settings for 1st and 3rd pls

Shame u not nearby otherwise I'll tog along and get some tips
Click to expand...

They are all at f2.8/f3

The B & W image is at 1/60th sec and my daughter, the last one is also at 1/60th sec ISO 200
 
Last edited:
The BW looks like it had flash??
 
rookies said:
The BW looks like it had flash??
Click to expand...

Yep ....... outdoors

105mm has good reach for these type of shots ....... I find the lens really sharpe

and you can use it for stuff like this

Portrait_6.jpg



and look at the quality at f8

Portrait_7.jpg



and I posted some reasonable close up shots o your other thread

Good luck

stick with it - get to know the lens
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Yep ....... outdoors

105mm has good reach for these type of shots ....... I find the lens really sharpe

and you can use it for stuff like this

Portrait_6.jpg



and look at the quality at f8

Portrait_7.jpg



and I posted some reasonable close up shots o your other thread

Good luck

stick with it - get to know the lens
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your good work.

I think I will give it a few more days and go out and see how it produce out there.
 
minnnt said:
I feel a bit like a broken record but the 85 is superb.
Click to expand...

as well as the 105mm I use my 300mm f4 for "close ups" ... sometimes with the x 1.4TC ........ never tried the 85mm ......... what's it like at f11/f16 and upwards
 
Last edited:
I've had the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro before.

If you want a portrait lens that is quick to focus, better for low light that is sharp then the 85mm f1.8 takes some beating.

Macro lenses are notoriously slow to focus and often have a focus limiter on them to stop them from searching throughout the whole range to grab focus.

Normal prime lenses will just zip to focus in an instant which can make all the difference if your shooting moving people.
 
Never fails to amaze me how kit is bought without much thought and then sold on because they were imagined to do something else. I wish I had that sort of money to try things out with.

Incidentally, I find the Nikon f2.8 105mm a great lens for what it is designed for. No complaints and really neat, crisp results when used as designed.

Now where do I find that money for the f2 200mm VRII I have always hankered after?
 
minnnt said:
I've had the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro before.

If you want a portrait lens that is quick to focus, better for low light that is sharp then the 85mm f1.8 takes some beating.

Macro lenses are notoriously slow to focus and often have a focus limiter on them to stop them from searching throughout the whole range to grab focus.

Normal prime lenses will just zip to focus in an instant which can make all the difference if your shooting moving people.
Click to expand...

I bought the 105mm as a macro lens ......... like most lens it can do other things ....... I have always found it to be a sharpe lens and not particularly slow unless it is used for macro and close up work .. when hopefully things don't move (too much anyway)

I also use a V1 +FT1 for close ups with the 105 and the 300mm ....... I suppose that the 85mm would also give me some distance ......... but I would not want to use it at f1.8 ........ I prefer to get as much DOF as possible ........ so would be looking at at least f8 and preferable f16
 
Hmmm

Thinking of keeping it for time being see how I get on and possibly get into macro. And get 2 new lens

28mm 1.8 g and a 85mm 1.8g to go with my 50mm
 
Bill what sort macro you done pls. Have u a macro flash too??
 
If the lens produces sharp images then it sounds like there's nothing wrong with it. If it just seems slower to focus it's a likely consequence of being a macro lens. Portrait photography can often be an area where very fast focus isn't needed, so I've heard many recommendations of using a macro lens if you have one already (but not buying one specifivally as a portrait lens). My Canon 100L macro has worked fine for me on the rare occassion I've used it for a portrait,unfortunately you've already got experience of that and it sounds like the Nikon 105 you have is disappointing in comparison.
 
rookies said:
Hmmm

Thinking of keeping it for time being see how I get on and possibly get into macro. And get 2 new lens

28mm 1.8 g and a 85mm 1.8g to go with my 50mm
Click to expand...

depends how you see "portraits" ........ the casual stuff where you want a non posed none set up situation I find that the 70 200mm f2.8 VR is good for people ....... if you are into "perfect" portraits ....... I'd look at the Nikon 200mm f2 .. as suggested above ...... although some use the 300mm f2.8VR to get more compression, I've tried occasionally on a tripod, ........ I'm not into these typical "portrait" images ........ not really good enough with people ..... if you really focus on a specialist area you need to research technique and what's needed ....... no one lens is the answer
 
stu.artd said:
If the lens produces sharp images then it sounds like there's nothing wrong with it. If it just seems slower to focus it's a likely consequence of being a macro lens. Portrait photography can often be an area where very fast focus isn't needed, so I've heard many recommendations of using a macro lens if you have one already (but not buying one specifivally as a portrait lens). My Canon 100L macro has worked fine for me on the rare occassion I've used it for a portrait,unfortunately you've already got experience of that and it sounds like the Nikon 105 you have is disappointing in comparison.
Click to expand...
Yes I think the canon was a much quicker lens at AF I got on with it really well. But I a not wanting to look back as I love the Nikon D750 more over the 5dm3

Just need try work things out I guess
 
I would love the 70-200 2.8 but it pretty pricey lol is the version 1 any good over the version 2
 
rookies said:
Bill what sort macro you done pls. Have u a macro flash too??
Click to expand...

I'm just an average photographer - proper macro is just too difficult for me ........ but I take lots of dragonfly and damselfly images ......... I think that I posted some in an earlier thread ...... but there are plenty on the Communal Dragonfly thread on here or Flickr ...... it just takes practice and good, proper light ..... I have not used a flash yet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top