Nikon vs Pentax Macro

[MFstooges]

Which one is a better performer in manual focus variety : Nikkor Micro 105mm F2.8 / F4 or Pentax Macro 100mm F4 ?

 

[randyB]

Both brands are very high quality, I doubt you will see any difference between the two. Just choose the one that works with your main camera body.

 

[benveniste]

The Nikon and Pentax f/4 lenses are close to identical. Some reviewers claim that the Pentax has slightly nicer bokeh. The 105mm f/2.8 has CRC and uses floating elements to eke out slightly more performance. It's also slightly easier to focus precisely, especially on an extension tube. But it's slightly larger, doesn't come with a built-in hood, and because of CRC has a little less working distance than the either of the f/4 lenses.

Pick the brand for the camera you prefer to use. If that's Nikon, if you plan to have the lens do "double duty" as a short telephoto, pick the f/2.8. Otherwise, pick the lens in better overall condition.

 

[Henning Serger]

Which one is a better performer in manual focus variety : Nikkor Micro 105mm F2.8 / F4 or Pentax Macro 100mm F4 ?

If you are looking at the best performer and manual focus, you should have a look at the Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100, as ZF, ZF.2 or current Milvus version for Nikon F mount, or ZK version for Pentax K mount.
That is optically and from the built-quality the best performer in that category. It is not only excellent at close, macro distances, but also at medium and long distances.
For 1:1 magnification an extension ring is needed. But it also offers f2 as max. open aperture.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Chan Tran]

If you are looking at the best performer and manual focus, you should have a look at the Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100, as ZF, ZF.2 or current Milvus version for Nikon F mount, or ZK version for Pentax K mount.
That is optically and from the built-quality the best performer in that category. It is not only excellent at close, macro distances, but also at medium and long distances.
For 1:1 magnification an extension ring is needed. But it also offers f2 as max. open aperture.

Best regards,
Henning

Great! Hamburger or Banh Mi which is better? T-bone steak is best.

 

[dokko]

The best performing manual macro atm is probably the LAOWA 100mm f2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO.

Incredible performance, and as a bonus, goes up to 2x mag, is available in several mounts and rather affordable too.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Unless you are shooting Tech Pan with a tripod you won't see a hair's breadth of difference between any macro lenses - and even then you will be hard pressed.

 

[Henning Serger]

Great! Hamburger or Banh Mi which is better? T-bone steak is best.

Don't bother me with a Hamburger! Of course T-bone steak is always the best.......

Joking aside: I have written to the OP "If you are looking at the best performer......"
Because he has asked for better performance. And from his posting it looks like he is fine both with Nikon and Pentax mounts.
And my experience in my workshops and in photo groups has shown that photographers are generally thankful for alternatives / options, because often they are not aware of further alternatives.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Unless you are shooting Tech Pan with a tripod you won't see a hair's breadth of difference between any macro lenses - and even then you will be hard pressed.

From my experience in testing lenses for decades I have to disagree. For example many older macro lenses have a visible decrease in performance at medium and longer object distances. Concerning that single parameter alone there are very significant performance differences in lenses. And if you do want not only a macro lens, but a more versatile lens for a broader range of applications including macro work, than it is very worth to look at these performance differences.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

From my experience in testing lenses for decades

I have to bow to your experience. I spend no time testing lenses. Though I do spend a lot of time taking photographs.

I do confess to testing photographic paper, which does earn me some nerd points.

 

[Henning Serger]

Though I do spend a lot of time taking photographs.

Me too .
Doing one does not exclude at all the other for me.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[beemermark]

From my experience in testing lenses for decades I have to disagree. For example many older macro lenses have a visible decrease in performance at medium and longer object distances. Concerning that single parameter alone there are very significant performance differences in lenses. And if you do want not only a macro lens, but a more versatile lens for a broader range of applications including macro work, than it is very worth to look at these performance differences.

Best regards,
Henning

So which is better? Nikon or Pentax.

 

[xkaes]

Minolta came out with their first macro lens in 1961 -- a 50mm f3.5. The optical design was so good, it was used in all of their SIX later 50mm f3.5 Rokkor & Maxxum macro lenses -- into the current century-- and was even used in Sony's first 50mm f3.5 macro lens. The lens coatings and features changed, of course, but not the optical design. But it was designed as a close-up/macro lens, not a "normal" lens, even though many use it that way.

Their 100mm macro lenses are also superb, although I use a Vivitar (Kiron) 105mm f2.5.

 

[dynachrome]

You also have other third party choices. The Vivitar 90/2.8, also sold under the Panagor and other names, is a unit focusing lens. This means there are no floating elements. It will go down to 1:1 without any additional extension. The Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 (a later version was sold under the Tokina name) requires either extra extension or its dedicated 1:1 adapter (with glass elements). There are two versions of the Tamron SP 90/2.5 and 90/2.8 on the Adaptall II system. These lenses can be used on different cameras with the right adapters. The f/2.8 lens goes to 1:1 by itself. The earlier f/2.5 models go to 1:2 without additional extension. A very nice alternative is the Kiron 105/2.8. It goes to 1:1 by itself. The lens was also sold as a Vivitar 100/2.8 Macro, Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 (poetic license), the Rikenon P 100/2.8 macro and who knows what other named. I like this lens for both near and far subjects. Don't put the Rikenon P version on any Pentax AF cameras. It may never come off. There was a version of the Vivitar 90/2.8 which is slightly larger and is marked f/2.5 which is also good. It was sold also under the Panagor and Spiratone names.

Of the original Nikon and Pentax macro lenses, I have the 100/4 in K mount, a 100/4 Bellows Takumar, two 105/4 Micro Nikkors, a 105/2.8 Micro Nikkor and a 105/2.8 Micro Nikkor AF D. Of these, my favorite is the AF Nikkor. It works equally well on manual focus cameras. It is a more modern design with floating elements, is sharp from near to far and reaches 1:1 without additional extension.

Technique makes up a big part of success when it comes to close-up and macro photography. I highly recommend The Manual Of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz (1979) for learning the basics. A large two volume update has been published in the last year and is very nice. You can find the original for a very reasonable price online.

 

[dynachrome]

xkaes, the 50/3.5 Minolta macro lenses are some of my favorites. I have more than I can count. I have the original pre-set version (but in SR mount), all Rokkor versions, the plain MD, the Celtic (many of these) and two A Mount examples. I have to say that in A Mount I also have two 50/2.8 lenses. These are very interesting, with two floating element groups. They also reach 1:1 by themselves. Is my 60/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor sharper than the 50/2.8 Minolta macro? Not that I can tell.

 

[xkaes]

A large two volume update has been published in the last year and is very nice.

Thanks for mentioning this. I had not heard about it.

I just checked and seeing it's about 10X the price of the first edition (1979), I think I'll wait. The original is mostly B&W and this new set is mostly color, but not too many places have it for sale. I'll wait until there are used copies available. Looks impressive.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have both lenses and find them both exceptionally high resolving.

As a reference point, below is from my Pentax 50mm f4 but the others are equal to the task.

Resolution testing my SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro lens by Les DMess, on Flickr

Bought super cheap on local listing - SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro lens, I was curious just how much can it resolve. So I tested it using Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 developed in Kodak Tehnidol at all apertures and scanned it using DSLRs 14.6MP K20D, 36MP D800 and my Coolscan 4000dpi as well as optical magnification.

Full target at bottom left and 100% crops from the DSLRs and Coolscan above it.

As you can see from the optical magnification crop on the right, clearly the lens can capture far more detail onto this film then can be resolved by the methods I used.

 

[MFstooges]

The Zeiss produces very nice image but I don't want to sell my kidney. The Laowa is pretty interesting since it produces 2:1 magnification and of new design.
I am leaning to Pentax mount if both Pentax and Nikkor have about same IQ. Do they (Nik f2.8/F4 & P F4) have same working distance?

 

[dynachrome]

The 105/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor and the SMC Pentax 100/4 (as well as the
M version) both reach 1:2 without additional extension. The Pentax lens has unit focusing. This means that all of the lens elements move in unison and the spaces between the elements do not change. The 105/2.8 AIS is a more modern design and has floating elements - the distances between the elements will change as the lens is focused. Sometimes when focus goes from infinity toward minimum focus, the effective focal length can change a little. This can change the working distance a little. Normally this is not a serious problem. The 200/4 manual focus Micro Nikkor actually has an effective focal length of about 170mm at its closest focusing distance. If you had two unit focusing lenses, one a 100 and the other a 105, the difference in working distance would be miniscule. You should be happy with any of these lenses. On the subject of the 50/4 Pentax macro, I forgot to mention that I also have a 50/2.8 SMC Pentax-A. It slso goes to 1:2 without additional extension and has a lot more plastic in its barrel but is more pleasant to carry around as a standard lens with its faster speed. I have never compared it directly with my 50/4 Pentax lenses but it seems fine to me. Once you settle on which lens you will go with, I hope you get to enjoy making close-up and macro photos as much as I do.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

If you are looking at the best performer and manual focus, you should have a look at the Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100 [...] For 1:1 magnification an extension ring is needed. But it also offers f2 as max. open aperture.

Zeiss has also produced a very good Makro-Planar 100mm f/2.8 which reached 1:1, for Contax/Yashica mount, in late 80s.
I got one several years ago and I like it a lot.

 

[xkaes]

The 105/2.8 AIS is a more modern design and has floating elements - the distances between the elements will change as the lens is focused.

I'm not down-playing the floating elements, but they are only floating up to the max magnification of 1:2. When an extension tube is added to get to 1:1 (or whatever), it's no longer floating.

 

[dynachrome]

I think what you mean to say is that the difference in spacing between the elements reaches its maximum when the lens is at 1:2 and that from 1:2 to 1:1 (because the PN-11 extension tube has been added) there is no additional change in the positions of the elements. I think Nikon took this into account when designing the lens. I have the two versions of the 105/4 Bellows Nikkor and two 105/4 Micro Nikkors. From my informal testing, the 105/2.8 AIS is not any sharper than the 105/4. As you get closer you lose some light so starting out at f/2.8 can make it easier to focus. The old(er) 90/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 Macro came with a 1:1 adapter which had glass elements. It was possible to simply use an extension tube to get that lens to 1:1 but the matching adapter is supposed to provide a flatter field. Vivitar also had a 90/2.5 which was not a Series 1 model and which went to 1:1 by itself. Which one is better at 1:1? I don't know for sure. They are both good. The two Tamron SP 90/2.5 Macro lenses go to 1:2 by themselves. Tamron recommended either a 2X teleconverter or an extension tube to reach 1:1. Results with the plain tube are much better. The 100/2.8 Makro-Planar in Y/C mount is mentioned above. I don't have that lens yet but I do have the 100/3.5 Yashica ML and it is very good. I keep a standard set of Contax extension tubes with it and that gets me to just better than 1:1. In addition to that macro lens in Y/C mount and in that focal length range I have the Vivitar 100/2.8 (same as Kiron 105/2.8) and the Vivitar 100/3.5 "plastic fantastic." I took some pictures of my grandson today with a Yashica FX-3 Super and a 55/2.8 Yashica ML Macro. The film was Phoenix 200 so I expect something wacky.

 

[loccdor]

Macro lenses tend to be optimized for certain focusing distances (magnifications) above others, and what distance this is will vary between lenses.

For example, Pentax's current production 50 f/2.8 macro lens is great for 1:1, but their current 100mm macro lens is not.

 

[JParker]

Macro lenses tend to be optimized for certain focusing distances (magnifications) above others, and what distance this is will vary between lenses.

That is correct. And all older macro lenses I have used (designed in the 70ies or 80ies) have the priority in performance at closer distances. They are visibly weaker at longer distances.
In contrast to that are my results with the current Zeiss Makro-Planars (ZE / ZF /Milvus line): They are great performers at all distances, so really excellent all-round lenses.

 

[xkaes]

The old(er) 90/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 Macro came with a 1:1 adapter which had glass elements. It was possible to simply use an extension tube to get that lens to 1:1 but the matching adapter is supposed to provide a flatter field. Vivitar also had a 90/2.5 which was not a Series 1 model and which went to 1:1 by itself.

I didn't know there were two versions. I have the Vivitar Series 1 (Kino) 105mm f2.5 which does not need an extension or 2X converter to get to 1:1 -- but it's big and heavy. I've also run across Sigma and Phoenix 50mm macros that only went to 1:2 -- and instead of a tube or 2X converter on the rear, had a 2X diopter lens that screwed into the front! They were not mine, so I never tested them. A lot of ways to "skin a cat".

My 50mm f2.8 macro is a different Sigma that gets to 1:1 on its own, but the front element is NOT recessed as with most 50mm macros. I haven't seen an optical diagram on how they accomplished that.