Macro lens, MANUAL or AUTO focus?

I am planning to get a 105mm macro lens for my wife.
The 105 is to get more distance from the subject so lighting the subject will be easier.
But I'm stuck on AF vs MF.
For a novice, is AF of value in macro shooting?
At that close a distance, I am thinking maybe not?

Some people like AF for closeup work. I hate it.

I set magnification, then focus by moving the camera/lens assembly closer to/farther from the subject. This guarantees that the plane of best focus is where I want it, not where the focusing algorithm thinks it should be.

Focusing by turning the focusing ring or by letting the camera do that changes magnification. I wants the magnification I wants.

At near distances, focusing by changing extension (that's what turning the focusing ring does with lenses that don't have internal focusing, and don't get me started on IF) is risky because at all magnifications but 1:1 there are two magnifications for every film plane-to-subject distance. Let the AF run away a little and bingo! guaranteed not the magnification I want.

I agree with Dan, manual focus is easier, I find AF focussing where I definitely don't want or hunting for focus. With the camera that shoots Marco I use manual focussing.

Ian

Manual focus all the time for macro. Only time I use AF on a macro is when the lens is at infinity, and I let t he lens do the work of the long throw to bring it into macro area.

But... It's a dual-purpose lens, and I use my Canon 100mm macro for portraits also, and will use it 99.9% in AF for that work.

So if you are getting a macro lens strictly for macro work, MF if really all you need. But if you plan on using it for other work (105mm is a nice portrait length), you may want to go for the AF.

I can''t add any new information to the discussion, but

+1 to the manual focus choice for macro work. I even have AF turned off on macros that have that capability.

- Leigh

Agree with Dan. The only situation where I can imagine using AF for macro might be something like trying to photograph butterflies or other moving target with a 200mm macro.

Manual, absolutely!!!
The AF picks up on many things, but often not the thing you wanted.

A 105mm lens is great for non-macro use as well, so if that is your intention, consider the AF for that.

For close focus work - manual focus is what you will use.

Don't pick an auto focus lens that is difficult to focus in manual mode.

Matt,

MattKing said:

Don't pick an auto focus lens that is difficult to focus in manual mode.

Click to expand...

Why does this matter? I ask because the usual procedure is to set magnification, which can be read off most 35 mm macro lenses' barrels, and then focus by moving the camera/lens as a unit. Setting up and then focusing by adjusting extension or focal length (that's what IF lenses do) is dangerous.

Dan Fromm said:

Matt,


Why does this matter? I ask because the usual procedure is to set magnification, which can be read off most 35 mm macro lenses' barrels, and then focus by moving the camera/lens as a unit. Setting up and then focusing by adjusting extension or focal length (that's what IF lenses do) is dangerous.

Click to expand...

It matters for not quite macro close focus work, where manual focus is still preferable, but one wants the option of helical focusing rather than just complete camera/lens re-positioning.

And also because I dislike generally difficult to manual focus lenses.

MattKing said:

A 105mm lens is great for non-macro use as well, so if that is your intention, consider the AF for that.

For close focus work - manual focus is what you will use...

Click to expand...

Fully agree. At non-macro distances the AF can be useful, but she'll never want to use AF in macro. Too critical for AF, especially at 105.

Matt, thanks for the explanation.

Thanks guys.

This is the lens that I am now thinking of.
Dead Link Removed
It will give her the AF option for non macro work.

The manual focus option would be this lens.
Dead Link Removed
But the lens is limited in use on consumer DSLRs (her next camera), no metering.

In 1983 the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 with CRC (Close Range Correction) or floating elements in other words, was released. This is the manual version of what you are thinking of.

This lens is a ten element design and quite good, but from my own personal experience, unless you use the inbuilt lens hood to keep light away from the front element, you will have low contrast pictures. It also requires the PN-11 extension ring to allow you to do 1:1. Not a great imposition, but unless you have that accessory, you will be a bit restricted in your micro photography.


By the way, that little pin in the side that you see in the picture, is a focus lock. The Micro-Nikkor in warm weather can and does move from the position you have set in almost any position, except level. Very frustrating, so that little focus locking pin is a must to have and use. The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 that I bought new decades ago last century, does have that creeping problem in warm weather. It does not have that locking pin, I wish it did.


It is a nice lens, but I would suggest the 1990 AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 on paper, is a better lens for your intended purposes.


The AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 is a 9 element design and can be focused straight out of the box to 1:1. I don’t have, nor have I ever used the AF unit, but I would suggest it would be the better lens, especially as you have stated electronic camera bodies may be used in the future.

Mick.

Forgot to add, my information about the AF version was gleaned from the Nikon Compendium, pages 151-152. First English Edition 1993, by Rudolph Hillebrand and Hans-Joachim Hauschild.

I've not used that AF105, but would agree it will be a better fit on modern bodies. The lack of metering with macro gets one into doing exposure math for every shot, well worth avoiding.

Never AF for me, my only micro lens is the Nikon 55mm 3.5 which as not been out of the closet in a long time. My go to is a F mount no name bellows and several different enlarger lens.

David

ac12 said:

Thanks guys.

This is the lens that I am now thinking of.
Dead Link Removed
It will give her the AF option for non macro work.

The manual focus option would be this lens.
Dead Link Removed
But the lens is limited in use on consumer DSLRs (her next camera), no metering.

Click to expand...

buying a lens for the wife... pretty clever!Why didn't think of that? She would never believe me

suggestions on a good cheap manual macro lens that i can adaptor to sony e mount?

TenSpeed said:

suggestions on a good cheap manual macro lens that i can adaptor to sony e mount?

Click to expand...

I would suggest a Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 adapt-all lens. An adapter is available for Sony e-mount. I have had one since the 80's and find it is still as good or better than 95% of anything currently available

https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Tamron-Adaptall-Mirrorless/dp/B0054EORII

+

Dead Link Removed

?

RalphLambrecht said:

buying a lens for the wife... pretty clever!Why didn't think of that? She would never believe me

Click to expand...

he he
Except in this case SHE wants to do the macro shooting, not me.
Holiday expenses delayed the lens, so hopefully this year.

I have used both manual and auto focus for macrophotography. Both work, it is a matter of taste.

+ 1 for the 90mm f2.5 Tamron SP adaptall lens. Mine is the 52B model. No disappointments. I prefer manual focus and this one is manual. If you go this way, you might want to find one with the lens hood as the hoods are a little hard to find. Bill Barber

Oh, there are two models, the 52B and the 52BB. Th B is a more solid metal construction as contrasted to the 52BB which is more plastic construction. I've owned both and the 52B is what I kept. The 1:1 Tamron tube doesn't show up often, however a good and inexpensive set of extension tubes works just fine. Bill Barber

Just wanted to add that I used to own the AF 105 Micro-Nikkor, and while I can't compare it to the MF version (which I've never used), the AF one is sharp sharp sharp. I used it in manual focus for macro.