I purchased the Z MC lens during the last sale, for the VR and reasonable weight. The extra reach and closer framing are within my expectations; I have not had a chance to use this lens at distance and am still learning how to focus consistently.
polizonte
January 30, 2025 8:30 am
Another excellent review. I love my Z 85mm f/1.8 & Z 50mm f/1.8 – sharp, colors, great focus, portable size and weight, for my simple landscapes and family photos. The MC Z 105mm sounds like a solution for my needs, not in the real 1:1 macro range but at least closer framing …without spending thousands on a heavier lens.
wixx
June 12, 2024 11:06 am
I am also interested in the effective aperture curiosity. I suggest two explanations: -the lens is really f/2.25, but stopped down at far distances -pupil magnification (P=1.45) in the formula : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…g_f-number
Franck Avril
May 29, 2024 4:34 pm
As always, I enjoyed reading the reviews and the Readers’ Comments as well ! I’ve only had the lens a week or so (but ‘have shot tons of macros over my lifetime with any standard and “McGiver-ed” setups I can concoct). I love the 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor (D), having used it over the Nikon DSLR line for many years, as well as on Canon bodies with proper adapters.
I opted to try the Z 105mm macro for a variety of reasons (though autofocus for macro work isn’t how I go about things anyway), such as its 1:1 ratio, its in-the-field non-macro capabilities, and the VR. It allows me to work faster than with my other macro lenses, but also, I’ve borrowed from my macro set to work with the 5T and the 6T close-up diopters, which happen to also thread onto the Z lens easily as they, too, have a 62mm thread mount.
The autofocus works just fine on the Z, within the limits of the resultant reduced distance, but I find that either “T” diopter greatly augments what the Z-lens can do for me, without worrying about unmounting the lens and adding extension tubes, converters and all sorts of paraphernalia between it and the camera body.
So for those of you who had enjoyed the 5T and 6T on previous Nikon bodies and lenses, give it a go ! Best,
F.
T. Steen
March 2, 2024 1:35 pm
Thank you for this excellent review. I offer the following observations relative to the behavior of this lens and other macro lenses when focused at a 1:1 image ratio or magnification: Focused at 1:1, the distance between the sensor plane and the plane that is in focus is 4 times the effective focal length, this makes it easy to determine the effective focal length of macro lenses at 1:1. Note that only one of the following lenses is operating at its marked (infinity) focal length when focused to a 1:1 magnification.
105mm f/4 Nikkor – mounted on PN-11 tube to reach a 1:1 magnification – Effective focal length at 1:1 = 105mm; 105mm f/2.8D AF lens – direct focus to 1:1 magnification, Effective Focal length = 80mm; 105mm f/2.8 G lens – direct focus to 1:1 magnification, effective focal length = 77.5mm; 105mm f/2.8 VR S (Z) lens – direct focus to 1:1 magnification, effective focal length = 81.3mm; 125mm APO-Lanthar SL macro lens, Nikon mount – direct focus to 1:1 magnification, effective focal length = 96.2mm.
Note all of the above lenses except the older 105 f/4 lens utilize a change of focal length in order to focus to reach a 1:1 magnification; the 105mm f/4 lens is unique in maintaining its 105mm effective focal length even at a 1:1 magnification (its elements are in an unchanged relationship as they are mounted together in a barrel that focuses as a unit). The length of the required helicoid mount would be prohibitively long if the full 105mm focal length were to be used all of the way to a 1:1 magnification; therefore, such lenses need to “zoom” to a shorter focal length in order to work. It is important to note, this reduction in focal length gives the lenses that focus directly to 1:1 magnification more light gathering capacity at the reduced focal length because they are now operating at a much shorter effective focal length with an unchanged front element diameter. Therefore the 1:1 magnification no longer requires a full 2 stop change in f-stop setting to compensate for the change in magnification.
>is 4 times I think this is not true. It would hold only if the lens was single thin lens. Front and back principal coincide,the interprincipal distance is zero. But lens assemblies typically front and back principal planes diverged It does not affect that some lenses shortens their focal lenght when approaching 1:1.
Aram Langhans
November 29, 2023 9:08 pm
Great review. I shot Nikon F mount for many years with many F lenses and after moving to the Z mount camera (Z7ii) and lenses have been blown away at whatever magic pixy dust they have used on the Z lenses vs the F lenses. Macro is one area I have held off on, though I do a lot of macro work. So far I have been using my ancient Leica 100.2.8 APO macro that has served me well for 20 years. It blew away the Nikon F mount 105. But I am getting to the point where I think I might like the option of touching the screen to focus and shoot at different areas of a scene for stacking. Using manual focus and a focus rail with the Leica lens is getting tedious with my decreasing vision. Not sure if you would have any idea how this new Z mount lens would compare with the Leica macro? I use to shoot a lot of Leica R glass on my Nikon DSLR bodies as it was so much better than the native glass, but most of them are gathering dust now with the new Z mount Nikon glass.
Steve
September 27, 2023 10:10 am
As you pointed out – so disappointing that we lose the ability to use a TC. When using the F mount 105 micro, most of the time I use the TC-20 for more magnification. For that reason I will not be getting the Z 105 for my Z9. I am still using the F mount with the F TC-20 and with the IBIS it is a great combination. It gives me the magnification option if so needed.
Also very disappointing is that they have not released the TC-17. I have all 3 F mount TCs and the most used by far is the 1.7. When people ask me if they only get 1 TC, which would it be, I always say the TC-17.
James Wilson
September 23, 2023 4:54 am
What a great review. Thanks and I’ve just purchased a new z105mm
Elias
May 21, 2023 1:02 am
Hi Spencer
Very much enjoyed reading your review and currently working through your other articles about macro photography.
I’m a wildlife photographer currently looking into my gear for an Amazon Rainforest trip. I’ll be taking my 200-500 with me for the birds, but I’m trying to decide on which lens to bring/buy/rent for the smaller critters in the rainforest. I haven’t done any macro photography yet, so I’m completely new to the genre and I was wondering whether or not I really need a dedicated macro lens for these smaller rainforest animals.
To be more specific, I am currently thinking about either the Z 105mm f/2.8 MC or the Z 70-200mm f/2.8. How would you compare these for the specific use case I have in mind? Will the 70-200 have enough pseudo-macro capabilities to photograph the frogs, snakes and spiders of the rainforest or is the 105mm the way to go?
Paul Overmeyer
February 18, 2023 1:08 pm
Is it really worth getting this Z version if you still have the G version? I use it for weddings, shooting close up of the rings etc,
You could go either way. I have the F-mount version and kept it, because for my uses, I’m always at f/22 and using a flash anyway. I don’t need many of the benefits that the newer version offers, even though it’s undoubtedly the better lens.
I have had the F-mount version of the 105 (and also the Nikon 200mm macro that I love), for years, but there is something very special about this Z version of the 105. I do a lot of macro photography and I have found that this lens coupled with the Z9 has allowed me to get some great hand-held shots that I could not get before. I usually shoot manual with a tripod, but even on small insects I’ve used auto ant times and it will focus right on the eye and nail it! Love this lens.
I purchased the Z MC lens during the last sale, for the VR and reasonable weight. The extra reach and closer framing are within my expectations; I have not had a chance to use this lens at distance and am still learning how to focus consistently.
Another excellent review. I love my Z 85mm f/1.8 & Z 50mm f/1.8 – sharp, colors, great focus, portable size and weight, for my simple landscapes and family photos. The MC Z 105mm sounds like a solution for my needs, not in the real 1:1 macro range but at least closer framing …without spending thousands on a heavier lens.
I am also interested in the effective aperture curiosity. I suggest two explanations:
-the lens is really f/2.25, but stopped down at far distances
-pupil magnification (P=1.45) in the formula : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…g_f-number
As always, I enjoyed reading the reviews and the Readers’ Comments as well ! I’ve only had the lens a week or so (but ‘have shot tons of macros over my lifetime with any standard and “McGiver-ed” setups I can concoct). I love the 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor (D), having used it over the Nikon DSLR line for many years, as well as on Canon bodies with proper adapters.
I opted to try the Z 105mm macro for a variety of reasons (though autofocus for macro work isn’t how I go about things anyway), such as its 1:1 ratio, its in-the-field non-macro capabilities, and the VR. It allows me to work faster than with my other macro lenses, but also, I’ve borrowed from my macro set to work with the 5T and the 6T close-up diopters, which happen to also thread onto the Z lens easily as they, too, have a 62mm thread mount.
The autofocus works just fine on the Z, within the limits of the resultant reduced distance, but I find that either “T” diopter greatly augments what the Z-lens can do for me, without worrying about unmounting the lens and adding extension tubes, converters and all sorts of paraphernalia between it and the camera body.
So for those of you who had enjoyed the 5T and 6T on previous Nikon bodies and lenses, give it a go ! Best,
F.
Thank you for this excellent review. I offer the following observations relative to the behavior of this lens and other macro lenses when focused at a 1:1 image ratio or magnification:
Focused at 1:1, the distance between the sensor plane and the plane that is in focus is 4 times the effective focal length, this makes it easy to determine the effective focal length of macro lenses at 1:1. Note that only one of the following lenses is operating at its marked (infinity) focal length when focused to a 1:1 magnification.
105mm f/4 Nikkor – mounted on PN-11 tube to reach a 1:1 magnification – Effective focal length at 1:1 = 105mm; 105mm f/2.8D AF lens – direct focus to 1:1 magnification, Effective Focal length = 80mm; 105mm f/2.8 G lens – direct focus to 1:1 magnification, effective focal length = 77.5mm; 105mm f/2.8 VR S (Z) lens – direct focus to 1:1 magnification, effective focal length = 81.3mm; 125mm APO-Lanthar SL macro lens, Nikon mount – direct focus to 1:1 magnification, effective focal length = 96.2mm.
Note all of the above lenses except the older 105 f/4 lens utilize a change of focal length in order to focus to reach a 1:1 magnification; the 105mm f/4 lens is unique in maintaining its 105mm effective focal length even at a 1:1 magnification (its elements are in an unchanged relationship as they are mounted together in a barrel that focuses as a unit). The length of the required helicoid mount would be prohibitively long if the full 105mm focal length were to be used all of the way to a 1:1 magnification; therefore, such lenses need to “zoom” to a shorter focal length in order to work. It is important to note, this reduction in focal length gives the lenses that focus directly to 1:1 magnification more light gathering capacity at the reduced focal length because they are now operating at a much shorter effective focal length with an unchanged front element diameter. Therefore the 1:1 magnification no longer requires a full 2 stop change in f-stop setting to compensate for the change in magnification.
That’s incredibly useful, thank you, T. Steen!
>is 4 times
I think this is not true. It would hold only if the lens was single thin lens. Front and back principal coincide,the interprincipal distance is zero. But lens assemblies typically front and back principal planes diverged
It does not affect that some lenses shortens their focal lenght when approaching 1:1.
Great review. I shot Nikon F mount for many years with many F lenses and after moving to the Z mount camera (Z7ii) and lenses have been blown away at whatever magic pixy dust they have used on the Z lenses vs the F lenses. Macro is one area I have held off on, though I do a lot of macro work. So far I have been using my ancient Leica 100.2.8 APO macro that has served me well for 20 years. It blew away the Nikon F mount 105. But I am getting to the point where I think I might like the option of touching the screen to focus and shoot at different areas of a scene for stacking. Using manual focus and a focus rail with the Leica lens is getting tedious with my decreasing vision. Not sure if you would have any idea how this new Z mount lens would compare with the Leica macro? I use to shoot a lot of Leica R glass on my Nikon DSLR bodies as it was so much better than the native glass, but most of them are gathering dust now with the new Z mount Nikon glass.
As you pointed out – so disappointing that we lose the ability to use a TC. When using the F mount 105 micro, most of the time I use the TC-20 for more magnification. For that reason I will not be getting the Z 105 for my Z9. I am still using the F mount with the F TC-20 and with the IBIS it is a great combination. It gives me the magnification option if so needed.
Also very disappointing is that they have not released the TC-17. I have all 3 F mount TCs and the most used by far is the 1.7. When people ask me if they only get 1 TC, which would it be, I always say the TC-17.
What a great review. Thanks and I’ve just purchased a new z105mm
Hi Spencer
Very much enjoyed reading your review and currently working through your other articles about macro photography.
I’m a wildlife photographer currently looking into my gear for an Amazon Rainforest trip. I’ll be taking my 200-500 with me for the birds, but I’m trying to decide on which lens to bring/buy/rent for the smaller critters in the rainforest. I haven’t done any macro photography yet, so I’m completely new to the genre and I was wondering whether or not I really need a dedicated macro lens for these smaller rainforest animals.
To be more specific, I am currently thinking about either the Z 105mm f/2.8 MC or the Z 70-200mm f/2.8. How would you compare these for the specific use case I have in mind? Will the 70-200 have enough pseudo-macro capabilities to photograph the frogs, snakes and spiders of the rainforest or is the 105mm the way to go?
Is it really worth getting this Z version if you still have the G version? I use it for weddings, shooting close up of the rings etc,
You could go either way. I have the F-mount version and kept it, because for my uses, I’m always at f/22 and using a flash anyway. I don’t need many of the benefits that the newer version offers, even though it’s undoubtedly the better lens.
I have had the F-mount version of the 105 (and also the Nikon 200mm macro that I love), for years, but there is something very special about this Z version of the 105. I do a lot of macro photography and I have found that this lens coupled with the Z9 has allowed me to get some great hand-held shots that I could not get before. I usually shoot manual with a tripod, but even on small insects I’ve used auto ant times and it will focus right on the eye and nail it! Love this lens.