You made a few comments on the 105 MC S versus the 100-400mm S, can you add anything else? I expect that I’ll almost always have the 100-400mm with me (as my main lens), and I am wondering if I should even consider getting the 105mm (other than for very small macro use).
The biggest difference is that the 100-400mm can reach 1:2.5 magnification at 400mm, which is plenty for subjects like lizards, flowers, dragonflies, and butterflies. It lets you fill the frame with something that’s about 9 cm / 3.5 inches wide (assuming a full-frame camera). It also lets you stand far back when you do so.
Meanwhile, the macro lens can reach 1:1 magnification. You need to get quite close to the subject, but you can fill the frame with something that’s about 3.5 cm / 1.4 inches wide. For serious close-up work of small insects, spiders, coins, etc., it would definitely be the way to go. The f/2.8 aperture is also in the macro lens’s favor for general-purpose photography, like portraiture.
In terms of sharpness, the macro lens is sharper, but the 100-400mm is already so sharp that who cares? Unless you’re printing gigantic prints or cropping extensively, it is unlikely to be noticeable.
Mark Renner
January 29, 2023 7:08 pm
I’ve owned this lens for nearly a year and have used it less often than it deserves, yet every time I’ve needed & used it I have been SO impressed with it. It is absolutely the best photomacrography lens I’ve ever owned (and I purchased my first “macro” lens in the 1970’s with many others since). I do note one minor caveat: its “focus breathing” is noticeable and at times substantial when I composite multiple images using “focus shift / focus stacking” methods. To counteract that negative I merely avoid super-tight crops when doing focus stacking. This lens is an indispensable part of my kit.
That’s true, there’s some focus breathing on this lens, similar to the F-mount 105mm f/2.8G macro. I think that’s usually the case for macro lenses that are internal focusing.
I think this is only the second one yet! It’s an excellent lens.
Joe B
January 28, 2023 5:50 pm
As a product photographer for a high end market, this lens is incredible. The autofocus and hunting can be a bit slow and even frustrating at times – as mentioned in the article, a “longer distance to infinity” limiter setting would have been nice – but that’s the only negative thing I can say about it. For different compression of certain products or features, I’ll bring out the Z 50 MC, but that’s a rare occasion compared to how often the 105 is attached; it’s simply on a different level. If I had to build my Z lens kit again from scratch, this would easily be in the first three purchases, maybe even taking the #2 spot right behind the 70-200 2.8.
Glad you’re enjoying the lens so far! (And the 70-200mm f/2.8, by the sound of it.) I’d imagine that the lack of longitudinal color fringing is very important to high-end product photography, in order to maintain color accuracy. The 105mm F-mount lens struggled in that department.
FredM
January 28, 2023 9:42 am
Hello. Would like to see a comparison with the Sigma Art 105mm/2.8 DG DN also, have had excellent results with it. Thanks !
Will do! I don’t think I’ve ever tested the Art version of their 105mm macro. As soon as I do, I’ll add the results to this review.
Martin
January 27, 2023 11:46 pm
Success. (Please ignore previous post- sorry) I loved the G series of this lens. The Z series surprised me. There images seem crisper and clearer. I especially like the way it performs at narrower apertures. I liked being able to set the aperture via the control ring but it is far too easy to accidentally make a mistake, so I have had to stop using the control ring. I like the lens even more since the firmware update enabling linear focus control. It’s actually quite useful as a portrait lens. [I will eventually get an 85mm (probably the 1.8)]
Glad you got your comment to post, and I’m sorry that it didn’t work at first!
Your experience with the control ring mimics mine. I eventually disabled it after accidentally changing aperture a bit too often. (I’m not the only one, I see people accidentally hit it and change the aperture all the time on our workshops.)
Linear focus control is pretty essential for a macro lens, in my opinion. I’m really glad that Nikon added it to their cameras. It was one of my top complaints with the Z system for a while.
UrbexMark
January 27, 2023 12:25 pm
I have one and its a fantastic lens for what it is – very sharp with great rendering, color, etc. And it is surprisingly light and easy to handle given its size. Having said that I have barely used it since I got the 100-400; it doesn’t have as much magnification but if you are OK with ~1:2.3 or so (great for butterflies and other larger insects) its a better option IMO because the working distance is much greater.
I loved using the 100-400mm for dragonfly photography last year. It’s not a full replacement to a macro lens, but for most photographers, it could easily be enough.
another great post, very good, thank you very much for your and your Engagement! Question 1: If you use an intermediate ring 11 mm in bevor 100-400 mm lens which magnification is that then? And with Intermediate ring 22 mm is then the double magnification?
Question 2: Is there really no alternative to original Nikon FTZ adapters for old AF lenses so that the autofocus works? I was thinking of Tamron SP AF 20-40 mm f/2.7-3.5 Aspherical (IF) for example. regards
Ian B
January 27, 2023 4:15 am
Great review! Any thoughts on the Laowa 90 mm 2x macro designed for mirrorless? I know it is the sort of replacement to the 100mm 2x you referenced. I am interested in macro but I am waffling between this Nikon Z lens and Laowa. Part of me worries about the adage “Buy nice or buy twice”. I’ve seen some reiews indicating the 2x really only works well with a rail system and I’m more interested in handheld as I enjoy hiking. Note, I’m not new to photography just macro.
Thank you, Ian! I haven’t tried that lens, but the 100mm 2x is probably the second best macro lens that I’ve ever tested, only behind this Z MC. So long as the reviews indicate that the 90mm version has similar image quality to the 100mm version, you’ll be just fine with it.
I’m not sure why people would say that lens only works with a rail system. 2x magnification is hard to shoot handheld, and it requires a flash, but it’s not impossible – and the lens can always be shot at 1x magnification or less if you need.
You made a few comments on the 105 MC S versus the 100-400mm S, can you add anything else? I expect that I’ll almost always have the 100-400mm with me (as my main lens), and I am wondering if I should even consider getting the 105mm (other than for very small macro use).
Thanks for all your work on the reviews!
The biggest difference is that the 100-400mm can reach 1:2.5 magnification at 400mm, which is plenty for subjects like lizards, flowers, dragonflies, and butterflies. It lets you fill the frame with something that’s about 9 cm / 3.5 inches wide (assuming a full-frame camera). It also lets you stand far back when you do so.
Meanwhile, the macro lens can reach 1:1 magnification. You need to get quite close to the subject, but you can fill the frame with something that’s about 3.5 cm / 1.4 inches wide. For serious close-up work of small insects, spiders, coins, etc., it would definitely be the way to go. The f/2.8 aperture is also in the macro lens’s favor for general-purpose photography, like portraiture.
In terms of sharpness, the macro lens is sharper, but the 100-400mm is already so sharp that who cares? Unless you’re printing gigantic prints or cropping extensively, it is unlikely to be noticeable.
I’ve owned this lens for nearly a year and have used it less often than it deserves, yet every time I’ve needed & used it I have been SO impressed with it. It is absolutely the best photomacrography lens I’ve ever owned (and I purchased my first “macro” lens in the 1970’s with many others since). I do note one minor caveat: its “focus breathing” is noticeable and at times substantial when I composite multiple images using “focus shift / focus stacking” methods. To counteract that negative I merely avoid super-tight crops when doing focus stacking. This lens is an indispensable part of my kit.
Thanks, Spencer, for this excellent review.
That’s true, there’s some focus breathing on this lens, similar to the F-mount 105mm f/2.8G macro. I think that’s usually the case for macro lenses that are internal focusing.
Too bad that it only goes to 1:1.
That is an advantage of a few macro lenses out there like Canon’s 105mm RF and the Laowa 2x lenses. Hopefully Nikon makes something similar one day.
Thanks for this test.
I hope one day to see an equivalent of this lens in a Z Micro Nikkor S 60mm or 70mm… Ideal distance for my current work.
60mm is somewhat common for macro lenses, but considering the existing MC 50mm, I doubt that Nikon will prioritize one for the Z system any time soon.
It’s another reason why I think a 70-180mm Macro replacement would be really well-received.
It’s rare to see a len get full marks from you :D
I think this is only the second one yet! It’s an excellent lens.
As a product photographer for a high end market, this lens is incredible. The autofocus and hunting can be a bit slow and even frustrating at times – as mentioned in the article, a “longer distance to infinity” limiter setting would have been nice – but that’s the only negative thing I can say about it. For different compression of certain products or features, I’ll bring out the Z 50 MC, but that’s a rare occasion compared to how often the 105 is attached; it’s simply on a different level. If I had to build my Z lens kit again from scratch, this would easily be in the first three purchases, maybe even taking the #2 spot right behind the 70-200 2.8.
Glad you’re enjoying the lens so far! (And the 70-200mm f/2.8, by the sound of it.) I’d imagine that the lack of longitudinal color fringing is very important to high-end product photography, in order to maintain color accuracy. The 105mm F-mount lens struggled in that department.
Hello. Would like to see a comparison with the Sigma Art 105mm/2.8 DG DN also, have had excellent results with it. Thanks !
Will do! I don’t think I’ve ever tested the Art version of their 105mm macro. As soon as I do, I’ll add the results to this review.
Success. (Please ignore previous post- sorry)
I loved the G series of this lens. The Z series surprised me. There images seem crisper and clearer. I especially like the way it performs at narrower apertures. I liked being able to set the aperture via the control ring but it is far too easy to accidentally make a mistake, so I have had to stop using the control ring.
I like the lens even more since the firmware update enabling linear focus control. It’s actually quite useful as a portrait lens. [I will eventually get an 85mm (probably the 1.8)]
Glad you got your comment to post, and I’m sorry that it didn’t work at first!
Your experience with the control ring mimics mine. I eventually disabled it after accidentally changing aperture a bit too often. (I’m not the only one, I see people accidentally hit it and change the aperture all the time on our workshops.)
Linear focus control is pretty essential for a macro lens, in my opinion. I’m really glad that Nikon added it to their cameras. It was one of my top complaints with the Z system for a while.
I have one and its a fantastic lens for what it is – very sharp with great rendering, color, etc. And it is surprisingly light and easy to handle given its size. Having said that I have barely used it since I got the 100-400; it doesn’t have as much magnification but if you are OK with ~1:2.3 or so (great for butterflies and other larger insects) its a better option IMO because the working distance is much greater.
I loved using the 100-400mm for dragonfly photography last year. It’s not a full replacement to a macro lens, but for most photographers, it could easily be enough.
Hi Spencer and Team,
another great post, very good, thank you very much for your and your Engagement!
Question 1: If you use an intermediate ring 11 mm in bevor 100-400 mm lens which
magnification is that then? And with Intermediate ring 22 mm is then the double magnification?
Question 2: Is there really no alternative to original Nikon FTZ adapters for old AF lenses so that the autofocus works? I was thinking of Tamron SP AF 20-40 mm f/2.7-3.5 Aspherical (IF) for example. regards
Great review! Any thoughts on the Laowa 90 mm 2x macro designed for mirrorless? I know it is the sort of replacement to the 100mm 2x you referenced. I am interested in macro but I am waffling between this Nikon Z lens and Laowa. Part of me worries about the adage “Buy nice or buy twice”. I’ve seen some reiews indicating the 2x really only works well with a rail system and I’m more interested in handheld as I enjoy hiking. Note, I’m not new to photography just macro.
Thank you, Ian! I haven’t tried that lens, but the 100mm 2x is probably the second best macro lens that I’ve ever tested, only behind this Z MC. So long as the reviews indicate that the 90mm version has similar image quality to the 100mm version, you’ll be just fine with it.
I’m not sure why people would say that lens only works with a rail system. 2x magnification is hard to shoot handheld, and it requires a flash, but it’s not impossible – and the lens can always be shot at 1x magnification or less if you need.