Comments on: We should pay a very close attention to this patent (Nikon Micro AF-S 85mm f/3.5 DX VR)

By: mike

mike — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:40:37 +0000

The 60mm micro is useless for macros. The working distance is 2″, without the hood installed. When you put the hood on, there’s basically no working distance. I really don’t see the point of that lens. Tamron’s 60/2 macro looks like a much more interesting lens, whenever they finally start selling them.

By: mike

mike — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:32:45 +0000

Not usable to me. It’d be way too big, heavy, and expensive. If they can get the minimum focus distance over 30cm this could be quite neat. Also, an 85mm DX micro serves the same purpose as a 135mm macro with 35mm film. In a practical sense, the 85 is a bit better since it would focus closer than the 135 would.

By: mike

mike — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:19:31 +0000

I count 14 elements in 10 groups. Including whatever it is at “S” (iris diaphragm?), that adds up to 25 surfaces.

By: RThomas

RThomas — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:31:34 +0000

This sort of “infinite focus” trick is actually very interesting; combined with other stitching methods and HDR, it really opens up new ways of seeing. Google it if you think it’s just a hallucination.

I would be pleased if the VR function was just redesigned to deal with the sort of focus error found in handheld macro work (where the camera moves forward and backward, which is why I current take several frames when doing hand held macro, even though I do pay attention to DOF and focus).

If it turns out to be capable of working in real time to capture multiple focus points for post-processing, that will be really impressive. You could do this now, of course, but it would involve manual focus control all the way.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:14:40 +0000

What is that? A leak for a new Nikon lens?

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:57:03 +0000

It’s 1:1. The tables in the patent show inter-lens distances at three focus distances: infinity, 0.5x, and 1.0x. At 1:1 magnification, the two moving groups are almost bumping into the aperture stop, so there’s no room to go any higher.

By: Ken Elliott

Ken Elliott — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:37:05 +0000

This could be a really cool lens for DX macro shooters. Sure, I wish it was FX, but I’ve got the 105mm for that. Let’s not forget this forum’s reaction to the 35mm f/1.8 DX – everyone complained that it made no sense to be DX only. But it turned out to be a big seller, so perhaps Nikon knows it’s market better than we do.

I’m pretty sure Nikon will continue to build a full line of DX lenses aimed at cost-effective good performance, while building a line of FX lenses that are fast, sharp, and with little regard to cost.

Let’s face it – the sub-FF market is where most of the sales are. To stay in business, you have to do well in that market. So if this lens helps keep Nikon healthy and makes the DX shooters happy, I’m all for it. Just don’t forget to update the 85mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2 and the 80-400mm VR, please. I’m willing to be patient, since I already have the current versions of these lenses.

By: Daf

Daf — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:18:59 +0000

Oh the irony

By: WoutK89

WoutK89 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:26:32 +0000

Thanks for the response!

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:18:31 +0000

Not hung up on aperture. At the time of my post, hadn’t seen anything to really discuss macro capability. You have to admit, adding a new 85mm that is slower than the existing 2 lenses is less than exciting, without the macro capability. If it is an 85mm Micro Nikkor, then my interest went from none to “possibly add to my bag”. But, so far, I haven’t needed to add more macro capability than I already have.

By: Chris Lilley

Chris Lilley — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:07:12 +0000

Its amazing that everyone is so hung up on aperture, as if ultrafast lenses with lots of glow and other aberrations etc for gimicky low DOF portraits were the only application for a prime lens.

Macro shots are of course taken at f/8 to f/11 to try and get most of the subject in focus – you folks do realise that, right?

And yes, its a lot of elements. Even my CV 90/3.5 (which has far less axial CA than the Nikkor 85/1.4) has only 6 elements in 5 groups. And its APO, which this one does not seem to claim to be?

Of course, some elements here are used for the VR. Which, as Micro 105/2.8 VR owners know, is rarely useful for macro …

By: Cesar

Cesar — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:42:02 +0000

Canon has this new technique that acts as VR, not sideways but in the focal plane (am I telling this correct?). That would be marvellous for macro, because the slightest movement towards or from your subject and you loose your sharpness. Maybe this is the same thing but for Nikon! (I’m still not very interested but I guess a lot of people are)

By: Cesar

Cesar — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:37:10 +0000

If that’s the case there are plenty of 3rd party lenses to choose from that are excellent (tamron 90mm anyone?).

By: heartyfisher

heartyfisher — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:01:11 +0000

Lets list some facts and then try to extrpolate.
* The current nikkor micro for many dx users is the 60mm.. with 50mm working space
* the new tamron 60mm F2.0 has 100mm working space.
* The old tamron 90 has only 100mm working space ans changes length while focusing.
* The 105 vr may be too expensive for some consumer dx users.
* VR does not work well in macro ranges.

So a new dx 85mm micro nikkor with say 120mm working space would be most welcome to the dx shooters. If its IF and does not change length then so much the better. If its got VR then thats surely even better. and it will probably be cheaper than the 105 VR. F3.5 in macro ranges is more than enough. You are shooting at at least F5.6 mostly anyway and more likely at F11 and more to get good DOF.

By: heartyfisher

heartyfisher — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:32:29 +0000

Yay !!

By: Daf

Daf — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:27:00 +0000

Interesting suggestion.

But as others have hinted to – I’d find it unlikely that they’d make such a specialist lens DX rather than FF. Unless of course it’s price would skyrocket if it had to be FF.

By: wetnikon

wetnikon — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:32:49 +0000

I can see the purpose of it.
This could be a very interesting lens for underwater photography in poor visibility. The 105 VR is amazing but the focal length is just a little too long for these conditions

By: wetnikon

wetnikon — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:26:29 +0000

at least one very intellectual post…
:s

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:17:58 +0000

it reminds me of: http://i28.tinypic.com/f2j9lh.gif

By: menos

menos — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:41:58 +0000

It would certainly get me exited with a nice and low price tag for an entry macro lens (sub 400 USD) – otherwise, i’ll stick with used FX macro lenses.