68degrees
Well-known
How would these two match up? Length, magnification, sharpness etc. Thanks to all.
Nikkor 135mm with Ext Tube vs Nikkor 105mm micro
- Thread starter 68degrees
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 627
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The 105 Micro would blow it out of the water. That lens is a fantastic, almost perfect, flat field lens and is one of the finest optics ever made by anyone. All 135mm lenses, aside from the Leica Apo Telyt and a very few other modern lenses, are pretty much inferior to that 105 Micro. Completely different uses for both though but the 105 will still beat the pants off any 135mm Nikkor.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
68degrees
Well-known
how does the 55 micro compare to the 105 micro?
daveleo
what?
Over the years, I shot lots of pictures (film and digital) with an extension tube and a prime lens (24 or 28 or 50). Works just fine.
A year ago I bought the Nikkor Micro 55mm/f2.8 (here in the classifieds) and I cannot imagine using an extension tube again.
The 55Micro is supreme in quality and ease of use - AND - it focuses from here to infinity ( but expect to rotate the focus ring for a long while to do this).
I used it as my everyday lens for months on a Nikon D5100 (until I picked up the 28mm/f2.8 which is now my everyday lens 🙄 on that camera ).
A year ago I bought the Nikkor Micro 55mm/f2.8 (here in the classifieds) and I cannot imagine using an extension tube again.
The 55Micro is supreme in quality and ease of use - AND - it focuses from here to infinity ( but expect to rotate the focus ring for a long while to do this).
I used it as my everyday lens for months on a Nikon D5100 (until I picked up the 28mm/f2.8 which is now my everyday lens 🙄 on that camera ).
68degrees
Well-known
I have the 55 micro and I like it a lot but sometimes I cant get that close without disturbing my subject so i thought the 135 with a tube would be good choice, plus without the tube its a nice portrait lens.
Vics
Veteran
I love my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5! Makes macro photography down to 1:2 a piece of pie!
Vics
Veteran
I also think it's one of the best all-around lenses in the system. Gteat at all distances!
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The 55mm Micro-Nikkor is probably just about on-par with the 105 Micro. It's a bit easier to design the longer focal length and keep it a conservative aperture so the 105 is truly stellar.
The 135 with an extension tube should be fine but side-by-side don't look at the results against the 105mm or 55mm Micro lenses. The 135 will have more field curvature and be a tad softer. You'll see the difference plainly side-by-side then the next thing you know you'll have a 75-150 or a 200mm Micro.
If you have a 200mm f/4 Ai or AiS Nikkor, they draw a little flatter than the 135mm lenses and are awesome performers. Cheap too.
Phil Forrest
The 135 with an extension tube should be fine but side-by-side don't look at the results against the 105mm or 55mm Micro lenses. The 135 will have more field curvature and be a tad softer. You'll see the difference plainly side-by-side then the next thing you know you'll have a 75-150 or a 200mm Micro.
If you have a 200mm f/4 Ai or AiS Nikkor, they draw a little flatter than the 135mm lenses and are awesome performers. Cheap too.
Phil Forrest
raid
Dad Photographer
The 55 3.5 micro is reputed to the the sharpest micro lens. Do you agree?
68degrees
Well-known
I have the 300mm ai but that is almost too long, I was hoping the 135 would do the trick. Just when i thought my GAS was under control.
68degrees
Well-known
Vics
Veteran
I have a neighbor who uses a 300 and tubes for macro, and he's a pretty good shooter. Has just about all Nikon's lenses up to 1200mm I think.
Robert Lai
Well-known
Use your 300mm with a bunch of tubes if you're shooting insects. They like having more room between you and them. I have the 70-180 Micro Nikkor as well as the 300 f/4 AFS with tubes. The 70-180 is great for flowers and pictures during surgery (my initial purpose for buying it). For insects, the 300 with tubes is preferable.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have used and still use a fair bit of Nikon Macrolenses. Mainly the 55f3.5 Micro Nikkor and the 105f4 Macro (and a bellows 100 mm). The 55f3.5 was for 50+ years my "go-to" macro lens. Never found anything better - only drawback was the f3.5 which "dims" the screen a bit.
I just got an alternative - the Zeiss ZF Macro Planar 50mm f2.0 (got it on friday evening). So far only 2 rolls through it - but it looks good, really good. Slightly higher contrast than the 55f3.5 and overall sharpness looks equal or even better than the Micro Nikkor 55f3.5. Need to do more tests with it - I have a couple of rolls of Kodak Movie duplicating film, super panchromatic, 400 lpm - but the penalty is nominal speed of 1 iso! It would take about 4 hours to expose 36 frames - even with LED fill light panel!
The ZF Macro Planar works well on my F3HP - considerably brighter screen,
As for using extension tubes - unless the lens is a flat field lens and corrected for close up - you are going to loose some quality - but tubes are cheap so try it first before springing for a dedicated macro lens.
Shot with F3HP and my "back-up" Micro Nikkor on Adox Silvermax @ 160 iso (good idea to check the speed set on the meter before starting to shoot!). Td 201 developer A 3 min B 4 min.
Similar threads
- Article
