Nikon vs. Kiron macro lens

[clarnibass]

Hi

I was about to buy a Nikon 105mm f/2.8D macro lens when I suddenly saw there's a similar Kiron lens. The Nikon is an AF lens but I will use it manually anyway. It has the perfect working distance and 1:1 magnification without extra tubes which is what I need. The Kiron seems to be a similar MF lens that also gets to 1:1 without a tube. Basially a Nikon AIS that gets to 1:1.

Generally they seem to have approx the same price, so I think I'll go with the Nikon for the rare occasion I might want AF. But is it worth waiting and maybe finding a Kiron that is significantly less expensive? I'm willing to give up AF for a significantly lower cost, if the Kiron is as good as the nikon optically.

?

Thanks

[SonicScot]

Which Kiron lens are you talking about?

[dickb]

I have never used the Nikon 105/2.8 macro lens, but I have used (and still use) the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. It is very sharp, very well built, great long focussing throw to 1:1. A joy to manual focus, which you'll need to do given that it is a manual focus lens. It is fairly heavy and has a useful built-in lens hood. The one thing I don't like is the considerable longitudinal chromatic aberration wide open.

[Boris_Akunin]

If you're looking for an affordable manual macro lens, there are a few more options out there.

This Kiron lens was sold under several different brands:
Lester A Dine 105mm Macro f/2.8
Kiron 105mm Macro f/2.8
Vivitar Series 1 105mm Macro f/2.5
Vivitar 100mm Macro f/2.8
Soligor C/D 105mm Macro f/2.8

Another option is the 90/2.8 made by Komine, also sold under several brands:
Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 1.1 (Not the Vivitar Tokina/Bokina Series 1) (Ser no. 28XXXXXX)
Vivitar 90mm f/2.8 1:1 MC (Not the Vivitar Tokina/Bokina Series 1) (SER No 28XXXXXX)
Panagor 90mm f/2.8 1:1 PMC
Admiral-Panagor 90mm f 2.8 1:1
Rokunar 90mm f/2.5 1:1
Elicar 90mm f/2.5 1:1 PMC
Elicar 90mm f/2.5 1:1.25 PMC
Soligor 90mm f2.5 1.1
Spiratone 90mm f2.5 1:1 "Proexitel'

Here's a thread on it (german, links goes to the google translation):
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digicamclub.de%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D12763

Here's a thread comparing the Kiron and the Komine (german, google translation):
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digicamclub.de%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D12791&sandbox=1

That comparison also includes the Tokina 90/2.5, the famed "Bokina" (optically identical to the Tokina-made Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5, only differences are slightly better coatings in the Tokina and heavier construction of the Vivitar), here's thread on that (again, google translation from german):
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digicamclub.de%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D12824&sandbox=1

The Tamron Adaptall 90/2.8 may also be an option.


I can't tell you how the Nikon stacks up in comparison but I wouldn't expect it to be better than the Vivitar/Tokina 90/2.5.
You should get a sense of the typical prices in your area before you overpay, the rebatched Kiron/Komine macros sometimes sell very cheaply. (I just found the Kiron with Soligor branding for 40€)

[moltogordo]

I'll vote for the Tamron Adaptall 90mm f2.5 as a really good cheap alternative. I have one, and it's extremely sharp, and versatile as a medium tele, too! Here's a shot taken with this lens, camera the Pentax K100:




I also have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro, autofocus for my Canon T2i. It's a winner, too. Matter of fact, it'll match my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and my Pentax 100mm f2.8 macros (both autofocus) tit for tat. Here's a handheld shot taken with this lens of a gooseberry in my garden.



The sharpest macro lens I own is the exceptional Pentax-A 50mm f2.8. It might be the sharpest lens I own, period. It's my preferred lens for macro work on a DSLR - I have no use for autofocus in the macro arena, and the manual focussing of this lens is smooth as silk. Pentax glass is vastly underrated IMHO. Here's a shot taken with this lens on my Pentax K100.





I don't bother with medium teles (except for portraits - macros are a bit edgy for this but will do in a pinch) - I use my macros as standard lenses, and the medium tele macros as telephotos. The biggest difference between a macro and a standard lens is NOT close focussing - zoom lenses will do that. True macro lenses have a flat field for document copying at open apertures, not a curved field like regular Gauss designs. They are more expensive than regular lenses (and slower), because of design problems achieving a flat field of focus.

I went Pentax digitally because it was backwards compatible, and I love old lenses. I'm not the least bit sorry I did, either. I have a couple of Canon Rebels and some nice lenses, and a Nikon D50 that's been converted to IR by Lifepixel, and I have a couple of FM2s and half a dozen Nikon lenses as well, so I'm hardly brand loyal. If you can tell what camera took what picture, you're better than I am. Like MF lenses, they're all wonderful!!!

[clarnibass]

Thanks.

Nikon is also backward compatibable, I can use almost all Nikon lenses, but their older macro lenses require a tube for 1:1, which I already have so looking for a lens that doesn't rquire it.

I'm not really trying to get a cheaper lens. I'm completely willing to pay for a Nikon 105mm D (or same but non-D) because I found the specific working distance is perfect. The few extra cms over a Tamron 90mm are important. A lens like the Sigma 150mm is too long.

The question about the Kiron (or Lester Dine, etc.) is not about getting something cheaper, but getting the same quality for less, or possibly actually better quality?
I'm going to use it as a macro lesn only, around 1:5 to 1:1 magnification only.
For larger things I use my 55mm Nikon macro lens which is excellent.

Thanks again

[moltogordo]

You're welcome!

Sounds like you really know what you want, clarnibass! The only, lens, then I know that's in the same ballpark focal length and optical quality of the Nikon is the 105 Sigma, which I'm pretty sure you know about, then! In any case: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5457&review=sigma+105mm+macro+lens+f2.8+fantastic+image+quality

Now, if it's okay, I'll ask YOU a question! I do know that Nikon is backwards compatible, too, on manual. I have these 6 Nikkor lenses, the IR converted D50, and a couple of FM2s. So, I was considering a Nikon DSLR. Don't want a flagship, but something equivalent to the Canon Rebel line.

I don't really want to go for broke. I have the Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 on my D50 - but I have all of those beautiful Nikkor manuals . . . what do you suggest?

[clarnibass]

Yes, I considered the Sigma but the 1.5cm longer MWD of the Nikon is important enough. The Kiron/LD/Vivitar1/etc. all seem to have about 4mm longer MWD than the Nikon, which is also fine.

As far as a Nikon DSLR, that depends on what you want to do. First decide if you want FX (full frame) or DX (APSC).
A DX D5300 (or maybe even 5200) is great or a D7100 if you want more controls. A used D7000 is also very good but it's getting pretty old now. IMO all are mostly better than Canon Rebel but it's just preferance (the Canons are good too).
If you want FX then look at a new or used D610. Prices are coming down for this model now. Everything above that is getting pretty expensive (more than $2,000).
I really like the controls of the D7000/D7100/D600/D610/D750 all are somewhat similar with some differences.

So decide your max budget, whether you want FX or DX and if there are any specific feature sthat are important to you.