Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1:4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:08 pm    Post subject: Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm 1:4 Reply with quote
Surprisingly there seems to be no dedicated thread to this beautiful Nikkor on mflenses yet. While I ceratinly don't need another macro (micro) lens, I was curious about the performance of the Micro-Nikkor 4/105mm for quite some time. I have a few other vintage macro lenses in the 100mm range (Canon FD 4/100mm, Konica Hexanon 4/105mm, Mamiya Sekor A 4/120mm, Minolta MC and MD 3.5/100mm, Minolta MD 4/100mm, Nikkor AiS 2.8/105mm, Pentax Super-Macro-Takumar 4/100mm, Tamron SP 2.5/90mm, Panagor 2.8/90mm, and Kiron 2.8/100mm and others), and today finally a Micor-Nikkor Ai 4/105mm did arrive. Before comparing the "new" Nikkor with its cousins from Canon, Konica, and Minolta I owuld like to share an image of the lens itself - here mounted on a venerable FE which I got for next to nothing on flea market:



The lens itself is pretty large - here we can see the contemporary Canon FD and Minolta MC macro lenses:



Finally an image of the two classical 105mm manual focus Micro Nikkors, the 1.ç and the later 1:2.8:


It's quite incredible that the later lens - which is twice as fast as its precedesssor - actually is smaller. And it has even a double floating focusing!

Some tests at infinity will follow.

S


PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice score with that lens!

IIRC, the front of that lens was designed for a nikon ring-light flash.
They don't seem to be that common, at least around here.
I am going to have to find a (preferably) hard cover book on nikon lenses.
I tried my non-micro 105 f2.5 on an extension tube last night, and there is not a lot stellar there.

You may have to lower your expectations a little, at least for infinity.
Your f4 micro 105mm, and a few of the other micro series lenses were primarily designed for close-up work- which they excel at...

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:


You may have to lower your expectations a little, at least for infinity.
Your f4 micro 105mm, and a few of the other micro series lenses were primarily designed for close-up work- which they excel at...

-D.S.


A lot of people claim those things but in my opinion, they only apply to the first macro lenses with Tessar formula which suffered from lower performances at infinity and outside of the center. Like most other macro lenses of the same time frame, the Micro-Nikkor (Canon FD, Minolta MD, Pentax SMC, Konica AR, Yashica MF, etc.) 105 mm f/4 shows uniform and great sharpness at longer distances as well as long as you stop down a little bit (f/5,6 or, better f/Cool while being close to perfection wide open close-up. That's a very small compromise, given that distortion and field flatness are much better corrected than those of "standard" lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:


You may have to lower your expectations a little, at least for infinity.
Your f4 micro 105mm, and a few of the other micro series lenses were primarily designed for close-up work- which they excel at...

-D.S.


A lot of people claim those things but in my opinion, they only apply to the first macro lenses with Tessar formula which suffered from lower performances at infinity and outside of the center. Like most other macro lenses of the same time frame, the Micro-Nikkor (Canon FD, Minolta MD, Pentax SMC, Konica AR, Yashica MF, etc.) 105 mm f/4 shows uniform and great sharpness at longer distances as well as long as you stop down a little bit (f/5,6 or, better f/Cool while being close to perfection wide open close-up. That's a very small compromise, given that distortion and field flatness are much better corrected than those of "standard" lenses.


That's my experience as well, especially with the 4/100mm Macro (Micro) lenses which usually were Heliar type constructions. Especiually their correction for lateral CAs is nearly perfect - better than nearly all vintage normal lenses, better than all "non-Macro" 100mm/135mm lenses I'm aware of, and better than "APO lenses such as the Nikkor AiS and AF ED 2.8/180mm or the Minolta AF 2.8/180mm. That's pretty remarkable.

Apart from the Minolta MD 4/100mm Macro which extremely well infinity-corrected even at f4, the other well known lenses of its class should be stopped down to f5.6 or better f8 for best corner performance. While the Canon FD/nFD 4/100mm, the Konica Hexanon AR 4/105mm and the Nikkor 4/105mm as well as the Pentax 4/100mm all are Heliar type lenses, the Minolta 4/100mm is a Xenotar type.

That said, early 100mm macro lenses for bellows from the 1960s often are triplets (e. g. Novoflex 105mm and early (!) Minolta 4/100mm for bellows). Those lenses, of course, have field curvature, and their performance at infinity is rather limited.

Going back to the more modern macro lenses from the 1970s and 1980s: They were advertised as "universal" lenses with excellent sharpnesss from infinity to 1:2, and this certainly is true for the 100mm Macro lenses. At infinity, some of the 50mm Macros suffer a bit from corner problems at f3.5, but stopped down to f5.6 they usually are excellent as well.

S


PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess it all boils down to which lenses one has experienced.
There were more than a few that were not the equal of their advertising claims, and this extends to Nikon as well.
If I come across an f-4 105 micro like Stephan's, I certainly will not be trading my more common non-micro 105 2.5 against it.
I'd trade something else. Mr. Green

Hopefully we'll see some of his infinity samples soon, as well as some close up shots.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:

If I come across an f-4 105 micro like Stephan's, I certainly will not be trading my more common non-micro 105 2.5 against it.
I'd trade something else. Mr. Green

I got mine for CHF/USD/EUR 80.--. That seems to be a pretty "normal" price these days - certainly not too much for a lens which delivers near-perfect images at f8 (and very nice macro shots at f5.6)

Doc Sharptail wrote:
Hopefully we'll see some of his infinity samples soon

-D.S.


Here you are (CLICK TWIC ON THE IMAGE TO GET THE FULL RESOLUTION):




The Micro Nikkor 4/105mm is the oldest construction. Its bellows version started selling in 1970, the "normal" version in 1975.

The Canon FD 4/100mm Macro (introduced around 1975 as far as I know) is a bit better, and the Minolta MD 4/100mm Macro (1977) is slightly better than the Canon.

It's remarkable how much resolution these lenses deliver at f8, and how little lateral / longitudinal CAs they have. I'm pretty sure theses lenses would be good enough even for the A7RIV ...

Interesting also the results of the Minolta AF 2.8/100mm Macro (1987) - at f2.8 it certainly is much better than the Nikkor (1970/1975) at f4.

Of course these results say nothing about their close range correction.

S


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:

If I come across an f-4 105 micro like Stephan's, I certainly will not be trading my more common non-micro 105 2.5 against it.
I'd trade something else. Mr. Green

I got mine for CHF/USD/EUR 80.--. That seems to be a pretty "normal" price these days - certainly not too much for a lens which delivers near-perfect images at f8 (and very nice macro shots at f5.6)

Doc Sharptail wrote:
Hopefully we'll see some of his infinity samples soon

-D.S.


Here you are (CLICK TWIC ON THE IMAGE TO GET THE FULL RESOLUTION):



The Micro Nikkor 4/105mm is the oldest construction. Its bellows version started selling in 1970, the "normal" version in 1975.

The Canon FD 4/100mm Macro (introduced around 1975 as far as I know) is a bit better, and the Minolta MD 4/100mm Macro (1977) is slightly better than the Canon.

It's remarkable how much resolution these lenses deliver at f8, and how little lateral / longitudinal CAs they have. I'm pretty sure theses lenses would be good enough even for the A7RIV ...

Interesting also the results of the Minolta AF 2.8/100mm Macro (1987) - at f2.8 it certainly is much better than the Nikkor (1970/1975) at f4.

Of course these results say nothing about their close range correction.

S


A shade better wide open than I was expecting- a small shade that is...
...and much more improved at f8.
Looks like you got a good one.
I'd be all over one at $80.00 u.s.

Just a quick question- are you at the infinity stop for these?
Some of my nikkors will focus very slightly past infinity.
They tend to be fixed focal lengths, and it is not quickly noticeable, until I start playing with tripods.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent lens is is - but testing a dedicated MACRO lens at infinity is not quite, well ehemm, well thought Wink

But well, what I do I know...


PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Excellent lens is is - but testing a dedicated MACRO lens at infinity is not quite, well ehemm, well thought Wink

But well, what I do I know...


Well - I know that - you have made the same remark years ago, when published some test results of macro lenses at infinity Wink
My answer is still the same as it was back then:

1) Several manufactureres - including Canon, Minolta and Nikon - were avertising their macro lenses explicitly for all types of work "from infinity to close range" - in other words: they did consider their marco lenses to be truly universal lenses.

I myself have used the Minolta AF 2.8/100mm Macro extensively while hiking in the mountains - both for flowers as well as for landscape photography, and with excellent results, especially with the Kodak TP2415 high-res film.

Tomorrow, I'll also publish the results of several classical fast 100mm lenses (eg the two Nikkor 2.5/105mm versions and the Minolta MD 2.5/100mm). You'll see that the Minolta MD 4/100mm Macro at infinity is slightly better than the Canon nFD 2.8/100mm, visibly better than the Nikkor-P 2.5/105mm (Xenotar) and a lot better than the Nikkor-P 2.5/10.5cm (Sonnar).

Now you probably (and rightly so) will say that the Sonnnar-type Nikkor 10.5cm should be used for portraits. I agree with that, and my images will show why Wink

S


PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2022 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tend to use macro lenses for all types of photography, so this is useful to me.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1