Nikon users....105 macro VR issue

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:50 pm

http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

I'm a Canon shooter myself, but I do envy Nikon users a couple of lenses (mainly the 70-180 macro zoom), and I did envy their new 105 VR (stabilized) lens. In the review above, the author (who is considered quite a Nikon guru) indicates that both by his tests, and apparently by Nikon's suggestions, the VR isn't useful at macro distances. I and some other folks had flapped our gums talking about how VR wouldn't help with forwards/backwards movement in handheld macro, this suggests that it doesn't help even with classic vibration at macro distances....Though at the end he backpedals a bit and indicates VR helps a bit at 1/3 life size and smaller magnifications.

A pity, I was hoping it would inspire Canon to do something similar or better (unlike some brand-chauvinist users, I'm THRILLED when another camera company bests Canon in a design or price issue--Just puts pressure on Canon to improve for me).

georgedingwall · Post by **georgedingwall** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:53 am

Hi Mike,

While I agree that the VR on the Nikon 105 Macro VR lens works more effectively when it is further away from the subject, there is a noticable benefit to using it in handheld shots close to 1 to 1 distance.

This image shows two shots with and without the VR on. Each shot was the best of five frames taken at each setting. The top image is VR off, the bottom one is VR on.

The shutter speed was 1/30 second using natural light.

The field of view is approx 24mm.

When using the lens in this postion, you can definitely see the image in the view finder steady itself when the VR activates.

Bye for now

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:42 am

Thanks, George....

Anupam Basu · Post by **Anupam Basu** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:32 am

Nikon's decision to make this a G lens which is thus incompatible with the PN-11 tube is absurd. The PN-11 is probably one of the most useful macro accesories.

If you use flash then the stability of VR is irrelevant.
If you use a ambient light with a tripod then the stability of VR is irrelevant.
If you use ambient light and handhold then the stability of VR is not enough in most cases. Maybe in a few borderline situations, VR might just be enough to tip you over - would I sacrifice the quality and convenience of something like the PN-11 for that? No way!

-A

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:50 pm

Mike,

I pointed out on PlanetNikon that VR can lull macro photographers into a false sense of security. Vibration reduction only mitigates a certain amount of camera shake, so allowing you to use slightly slower shutter speeds hand held. It can also be switched to a panning mode where it will only correct up and down movement, not side to side.

However it has no effect whatsoever on subject movement, which can either be movement of an insect or wind movement of the plant it is on. In that case the last thing you want to be doing is using a slower shutter speed but higher ones, so VR is then counter productive if it fools people into going slower wrongly thinking if they can hand hold at a slower speed the subject will be equally as sharp as with the higher one they would have normally used.

Anupam is correct, for many of these subjects you may need to use flash anyway and then VR is redundant. VR ia only of real use in most macro situations on static subjects, and a static subject outdoors means one that cannot be moved by the breeze.

And yes, the 70-180 is a nice lens if a bit bulky. I am pleased I got mine after they were withdrawn before they all dissapeared off the dealers shelves..

I have only just obtained a PN11 ring so have not used it yet. I also prefer Nikon's micro nikkors as AF-D lenses, not the G type because you have no aperture control of these if reversed on bellows.

DaveW

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:47 pm

Well yes, I was one of those that was hoping this would be a huge benefit as well Mike

. I was hoping Canon would follow along the same lines. Never mind.

Very, very interesting thanks George as well. A shame to a certain extent. Back to the drawing board.

Danny.

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:28 pm

Anupam Basu wrote:Nikon's decision to make this a G lens which is thus incompatible with the PN-11 tube is absurd. The PN-11 is probably one of the most useful macro accesories.

Hi Anupam--Is there any compatibility reason the 105 VR wouldn't work with generic extension tubes like those by Kenko? I have a set of Kenkos for my Canon, and I am pleased with them.

Anupam Basu · Post by **Anupam Basu** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:39 pm

Mike B in OKlahoma wrote:Hi Anupam--Is there any compatibility reason the 105 VR wouldn't work with generic extension tubes like those by Kenko?

I should think they would work with the Kenkos but I haven't tried them. But it is weird that a company doesn't support its own extension tubes and Nikon doesn't make any tubes with AF contacts. Plus, the PN-11 is unique in that it has a rotating tripod mount. Makes a world of difference in stability for use on the tripod rather than the whole thing - camera and extension hanging off the front of the camera. And I use a manual body - F3 anyway - so G lenses are out.

Generally I understand Nikon's logic of moving to proprietory and electronic mounts but macro is one area where felxibility is of the utmost importance - you can put stuff behind or in front of the lens, turn them around, couple them etc - half my macro lenses aren't even made for the 35mm format! So to give that up in a macro lens doesn't make sense to me.

-Anupam

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:56 am

You can see the Nikon PN 11 tube with its tripod mount on this link if you scroll down:-

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/ha ... ndex1a.htm

The Kenko tubes will give you the automation as Anupam says, but do not give you a rotating tripod mount similar to that found on many longer telephotos.

Nikon does not seem to believe automation like auto focus etc is reliable when you get above 1:1 so does not make provision for it on its tubes or bellows. They seem to believe you should be switching to manual focus at such distances and presumes anybody going that close is competent enough to work the equipment.

The novice market regarding close-up is catered for by fully auto macro lenses down to 1:1, but after that, using rings or bellows with limited DOF etc your evidently considered to need experience to get a useable image.

I ought to have pointed out before that if you are photographing static subjects you ought to be using a tripod anyway if possible. So again VR is a bit pointless, be it the Canon or Nikon version. VR is really for those occasions when you have to take an opportunist shot you were really not prepared for as experienced macro photographer, with neither your flash equipment or tripod set up!

If it is an insect or plant being moved by the breeze no form of VR is going to let you use slow shutter speeds and still stop subject movement and get a sharp picture. Maybe someday they will come up with subject tracking which takes into account both camera movement and subject movement, simply locking on to the subject in the "cross hairs" and following its every movement to get a sharp image on the sensor, but that is a long way off yet!

DaveW

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:29 am

Points taken Dave. I don't actually use a tripod much though and do rely heavily on built in IS for 99% of what I take. Yes I use the smaller fixed lens cameras but the ratios we get with added 35mm optics, really need IS. Thats where cameras with built in IS on the bodies come into their own. Tripods are fine depending on how you shoot. I generally shoot very close to the ground and find tripods a real hindrance. I would love to see IS built into true macro lenses. One day, one day ...........

Danny.

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:55 am

nzmacro wrote:... I would love to see IS built into true macro lenses. One day, one day ...........

Danny.

However, until then you can use general purpose lens with IS plus extension tubes.

I think IS is a nice ferture even for a shorter focal length zoom lens. If your subject is not moving, you can shoot handheld in much less light than without IS or at a lower ISO setting.

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:25 am

Like Danny, I shoot a lot of handheld shots....A tripod wouldn't work for this one, for instance!

Having said that, most of my handheld macro shots are done with flash-only illumination, with the shutter speed fast enough that IS wouldn't really help. What I'd really like IS for is (as Danny mentioned) grab shots of non-macro subjects while doing macro. I've often lamented the lack of IS in macro lenses, but upon pondering, I have to admit I don't do that many shots where I abruptly switch from macro to wildlife shooting. I guess I just never give up the hope that Bigfoot is going to come ambling by (and that I'll look up enough from my ants to see him!).

But in fairness I have to admit that I can't really articulate a need for the IS that I'd really use very much in the real world.

georgedingwall · Post by **georgedingwall** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:51 pm

Hi all,

Like most other posters in this thread I tend to use flash when doing handheld macro.

However, there are a couple of minor advantages to having the VR switched on, even when using flash.

If you are using your cameras default sync speed, and there is sufficient ambient light, you can can get some smearing of the background or surrounding vegitation caused by camera shake. VR/IS can help to reduce this.

Even in situations where this does not apply, such as where there is no significant ambient light, I find having the VR on is helpful in reducing camera shake while I am composing and focussing the shot. The amount of shake I get without VR sometimes makes it hard to tell when I have the spot on the subject I want to focus on. VR on can help stabilize the view so that it is easier to tell what is in focus. This also helps a bit when trying judge the forward and back movement caused by any body movements in that direction.

Some posters have pointed out that you can't really do handheld macro at slower speeds. While this is true, I tend to look at it the other way. At any given shutter speed, up to a point, the VR/IS system give the user the equivelent of a faster shutter speed. So it's not that you can shoot at slower speeds so much, as that you gain some speed over what you would otherwise have with out it.

For other types of macro work, such as the stacked images I do, I would not want to use the 105 VR for anything more than 1 to 1. So the fact that it is "G" type lens does not matter to me. For larger magnification shots I have other lenses and accessories which can fill the frame of my D200 with a 2mm wide subject.

At almost any scale, I would nearly always be using manual focus when doing macro and closeup stuff. I've just never felt that the autofocus systems of the cameras I've owned have ever been able to give me the flexibility of focus point compared to manual focus.

If Nikon could come up with some sort of Macro VR system that performed to its maximum when using the lens at 1 to 1, I would certainly be interested. For now the 105 VR is a superb lens optically, and there are a few minor advantages when using it for macro work.

I'm not sorry I bought it. The VR system was not the only reason I did so. The old Nikon 105mm macro lens has a long extension when used at closest focus, and there is some awkwardness when switching bewtween auto and manual. The aperture ring is also a bit clunky.

The new lens is altogether a better lens to use in general and, for me, fits quite nicely ito my lens collection.

Bye for now.

Adrian · Post by **Adrian** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:56 pm

im a Canon user here,
though i did think that this nikkon VR Macro lens is a good idea, though i have never tried it.

i had the impression that the main benefit would be pretty much composing the shot handheld. just as geoge has said

cause oozing in and out to get focus and then pressing the shutter exactly when the focus hits the bugs eye is quite tedious at times,
I thought that maybe this VR lens would help to slow movement down alittle.

another advantage would just be regular telephoto.

if the Canon 180mm L Macro, had IS i would probly get it in a heartbeat, even if the IS wasnt effective for macro, i would use the IS for telephoto, and turn it off for macro.

but if i had a telephoto zoom allready maybe it would be a different story.

then again with IS Macro, i could take telephoto shots without switching lenses,

its kinda like a nature photographer freaks dream!

infact i would get it in a heartbeat!

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:56 pm

Yes, I would use flash probably around 75-80% of the time and some trips would be 90%. Where the IS comes in handy is before the shot for me. It allows me to judge the focus at the higher ratios, well above 1:1.

If for example lets say around 10:1 and above, if I switch the IS off, looking through the viewfinder is like trying to hold the camera steady on a plane in air pockets, its all over the place, vibrations everywhere. When its turned on, it stops shaking so as to see what I'm supposed to be focused on. Then finally the flash comes into play and takes care of the shot.

Hope that makes more sense in my case

Danny.