Look on the fstop ring, opposite the fstops.
Mine is a D version and I had the same problem finding the serial number. I have the 1st version of the 105/4 Bellows lens, a few regular 105/4s and a 105/2.8 AIS but I think I like the AF lens better than all of them. Let us know how you like yours.
I had one of those 90-180mm f4.5 Series 1lenses and thought it was excellent with transparency film in the color reproduction department. What do you think of yours?In 1969 I was 12 and two years away from having my first good camera. In my early close-up picture taking I had a Tiffen variable close-up lens which slightly cut off the corners with my standard lens, a set of Vivitar automatic extension tubes and then a manual bellows. I would eventually use various short mount and enlarging lenses with the bellows. Later I would have macro lenses. I didn't really start collecting things until about 1989. It's hard to believe that was 35 years ago.
I agree that magnification markings can be helpful but where exposure is concerned, I have many cameras with TTL flash capability. Even with TTL flash, I find it necessary to make exposure adjustments depending on the brightness of the subject. I'm not sure that even the D function works when I am very close to the subject. You need very good technique whenever shooting close-ups of moving subjects. There can be some hits and many misses. I do not generally use AF for macro work. The 105/4 has unit focusing so its focal length does not change at different distances. Most if not all of the 180-200mm macro lenses do not have
unit focusing. The focal length of these lenses is reduced at the closest distances but some are smaller and lighter than they would otherwise be. Two non-macro lenses which I have used successfully for macro work, with extension, are the 200/4 Canon FD SSC and the 200/4 K/AI/AIS Nikkors. The 200/4 Canon New FD has closer focusing to begin with but I don't think it's as good as the FD SSC. I also thing the New FD lens has a shorter focal length at its closest setting. I recently added some 283s and accessories myself. With the low voltage pack and four D size batteries, I can shoot all day. I have my eye on a 200/4 AF Micro Nikkor. It's supposed to be better than the earlier manual focus version. If I need distance from the subject I have a 90-180mm f/4.5 Vivitar Series 1.
My, you have a lot of 105 mm Nikon macro lenses. I started with a 55/3.5 in 1969, added a 135mm f2.8 Auto-Macro-Tele Quinar in Exakta mount (with Novoflex adapters so I could hang it on my Nik'mat), replaced the Steinheil with a 105/4 MicroNikkor, replaced both MicroNikkors with /2.8ers after my camera bag was stolen.
I have one complaint about the 105/2.8 AIS. It loses focal length as focused closer, so doesn't have as much working distance as the 105/4 at the same magnification. This is true of the AF too.
I have one complaint about the AF 105/2.8. No magnification markings on the barrel. Before Kodachrome went away I did a lot of flower photography with flash. I tested to find the right aperture to use given magnification over a useful range of magnifications. Can't do that with the AF lens but am not sure I'll be using flash (fixed output, not TTL) in good light.
I've used the 105/2.8 AIS on a D810 (ISO set to the minimum) with flash to shoot fish @ around 1:1 in a photo tank. Focusing has been difficult even with the camera's focus indicator. Recently used it in Panama to shoot fish in the photo tank with available light. Most of the results were quite poor. Out-of-focus but no motion blur. Not knowing better I'd set the camera to aperture preferred and auto-ISO.
Just used the same settings with MF and AF 105s at home. Focus was better with the AF, image quality not as good as I used to get with flash and KM. My photo tanks flash rig (2 283s with VP-1s) can be made to work with the D810 (Wein Safe Sync whether necessary or not) but with current airline practices taking all this to the field is iffy.
To answer your question, the AF 105 is a better tool for what I'm trying to do than the MF lens. Both can give better than good enough image quality but AF is a great help. And yes, I know that I have to make better use of the D810.
I use the AF-D version on my D7100 with absolutely no problem at all with flowers and insects.
Yes, mine wasn't neutral in its color rendition either. I found the rendering to my liking, but I'm also a "warm" kind of guy. I liked the resolution from the lens, but it is a bit on the heavy/bulky side. I sold my Nikon mount one years ago when I departed with my Nikon equipment. I did just pickup another in Konica mount for almost nothing, but I'll being trying that one on a Sony A7RII. I don't expect much, but who knows. I know it wasn't as good as my 105mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor MF lens at 105mm, but it was not to far off.I found the 90-180 to have a slightly warm rendition. This was more of an issue when I shot more slide film. If the end product is a print then adjustments can be made, especially with a hybrid workflow. I use more color print film now and adjustments can be made there too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?