105mm Macro sharpness expectation.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Also the DOF on the TT artisan is far deeper even if the lens is closer which maybe is something to do with it being a 2:1 lens? I shot it at 1:1 or near that on its scale to try to match up with the Nikon.


Screenshot-2024-12-11-at-5-05-59-PM.png

Screenshot-2024-12-11-at-5-01-41-PM.png
Probably very well observed :)

Did you compare exposure times?

If yes – were the exposure times much longer with the Artisan?

On your depth of field observation it is often not appreciated that in close up photography some macro lenses including Nikon do not shoot at the selected aperture when using an auto exposure mode :mad:

The Nikon is not a symmetrical optical design – the Artisan may be - part to help get increased magnification.

Going back well into last century macro lenses were usually symmetrical optical designs.
This meant at that at infinity an exposure time of one second at f8 became 4 seconds at 1:1 magnification.

Many recent macro lenses let in 2 stops more light at 1:1, maintain an infinity exposure (Nikon does) and reduce depth of field by 2 stops to half what it would be with a symmetrical lens design.

If you put the Nikon Z macro lens manual focus at Infinity and the body at manual exposure at f8 and shine light into the front of the lens while you change focus distance on the focus ring between Infinity and 1:1 you can see the aperture widen by the equivalent of about one stop.
This lets in about f5.6 light (see technical note below) even though the read-out shows f8 !

Many recent macro lenses focus breathe significantly by 1;1, typically if 105mm at infinity becoming about 70-75 mm equivalent at 1:1.

The physical size of the aperture of Nikon 105 Z macro at f8 is mathematically 13.125mm at infinity.
The aperture size of 13.125mm does not change at 1:1 focus though the lens changes to an angle of view of approximately 74mm.
A 13.125 mm aperture size at 74mm is mathematically f5.6 - result 1 stop less dof and a 1 stop brighter viewfinder.

Back to a Nikon Z top plate aperture read-out - at infinity manual focus the smallest aperture available is f32 - increasing to f51 at 1:1 focus !

If the Artisan is a symmetrical design then compared to the Nikon at 1:1 f8 it will have 2 stops more depth of field (double) though a 4 second exposure time when the Nikon exposure time is 1 second.
To get the same dof stop down the Nikon 2 stops or open up the Artisan 2 stops - and you should then get the same exposure time.

Technical note - at 1:1 focus I do not have equipment to determine if precisely 1 stop dof change is due to physically opening up the aperture and precisely 1 stop is due to focus breathing - though the combined effect is close to an infinity exposure time

NEW TOPIC - Chinese lenses.

Chinese and some other Far East lens manufactures are introducing lenses at a third or a quarter of the price of Nikon, Sony and Canon while maintaining good though not quite equal optical performance.
Many buy lens primarily on price due to budget limitations.
Getting a lot for relatively little money is as you observe a big Chinese lens attraction.
The recent Nikon introduction of a 35 mm and 50 mm f1.4 Z with a better than F mount performance but not as good as S at a relatively competitive price point may be a reaction to what is now coming out of China.

From a Japanese manufacturers point of view, the "fertiliser will hit the fan" if a Chinese company starts to make ML bodies at a low price point.
 
DXO is rendering much better. Strange. All I can assume is the DXO lens profiles really make a difference. My only gripe with DXO is it doesn't have Nikon colors. I actually really like nikons default color profiles.

The TT Artisan really is great for the price. I don't think I have a defective 105 I just think the TT Artisan is also very sharp.

One can do NR and lens correction only in DXO and still choose camera profiles in lightroom.
 
Probably very well observed :)

Did you compare exposure times?

If yes – were the exposure times much longer with the Artisan?

On your depth of field observation it is often not appreciated that in close up photography some macro lenses including Nikon do not shoot at the selected aperture when using an auto exposure mode :mad:

The Nikon is not a symmetrical optical design – the Artisan may be - part to help get increased magnification.

Going back well into last century macro lenses were usually symmetrical optical designs.
This meant at that at infinity an exposure time of one second at f8 became 4 seconds at 1:1 magnification.

Many recent macro lenses let in 2 stops more light at 1:1, maintain an infinity exposure (Nikon does) and reduce depth of field by 2 stops to half what it would be with a symmetrical lens design.

If you put the Nikon Z macro lens manual focus at Infinity and the body at manual exposure at f8 and shine light into the front of the lens while you change focus distance on the focus ring between Infinity and 1:1 you can see the aperture widen by the equivalent of about one stop.
This lets in about f5.6 light (see technical note below) even though the read-out shows f8 !

Many recent macro lenses focus breathe significantly by 1;1, typically if 105mm at infinity becoming about 70-75 mm equivalent at 1:1.

The physical size of the aperture of Nikon 105 Z macro at f8 is mathematically 13.125mm at infinity.
The aperture size of 13.125mm does not change at 1:1 focus though the lens changes to an angle of view of approximately 74mm.
A 13.125 mm aperture size at 74mm is mathematically f5.6 - result 1 stop less dof and a 1 stop brighter viewfinder.

Back to a Nikon Z top plate aperture read-out - at infinity manual focus the smallest aperture available is f32 - increasing to f51 at 1:1 focus !

If the Artisan is a symmetrical design then compared to the Nikon at 1:1 f8 it will have 2 stops more depth of field (double) though a 4 second exposure time when the Nikon exposure time is 1 second.
To get the same dof stop down the Nikon 2 stops or open up the Artisan 2 stops - and you should then get the same exposure time.

Technical note - at 1:1 focus I do not have equipment to determine if precisely 1 stop dof change is due to physically opening up the aperture and precisely 1 stop is due to focus breathing - though the combined effect is close to an infinity exposure time

NEW TOPIC - Chinese lenses.

Chinese and some other Far East lens manufactures are introducing lenses at a third or a quarter of the price of Nikon, Sony and Canon while maintaining good though not quite equal optical performance.
Many buy lens primarily on price due to budget limitations.
Getting a lot for relatively little money is as you observe a big Chinese lens attraction.
The recent Nikon introduction of a 35 mm and 50 mm f1.4 Z with a better than F mount performance but not as good as S at a relatively competitive price point may be a reaction to what is now coming out of China.

From a Japanese manufacturers point of view, the "fertiliser will hit the fan" if a Chinese company starts to make ML bodies at a low price point.
Exposure times are much longer on the TT Artisan.
 
Agree, and different glass chemistry and coatings. And a reminder to all of us that F-stop is not the same as T-stop. That's one of the critiques of cheap Chinese lenses in the cine community.
They seem to be right there for creating a sharp lens. You can easily see the difference in color though with the Nikon definitely producing a nicer looking image strait away. But for the $300 the TT artisan is very good. I have the 75 f/2 I bought out of curiosity and it's the same story when compared with the 85 1.8S I own. Honestly pretty impressive from a $160 lens.

No weather sealing though on either of the TT artisans. For a studio where you had a fixed macro setup I could see it being a nice setup for not a lot of money with a Z5 that would offer very close results to the 105 macro but with more work if focus stacking was being used.
 
They seem to be right there for creating a sharp lens. You can easily see the difference in color though with the Nikon definitely producing a nicer looking image strait away. But for the $300 the TT artisan is very good. I have the 75 f/2 I bought out of curiosity and it's the same story when compared with the 85 1.8S I own. Honestly pretty impressive from a $160 lens.

No weather sealing though on either of the TT artisans. For a studio where you had a fixed macro setup I could see it being a nice setup for not a lot of money with a Z5 that would offer very close results to the 105 macro but with more work if focus stacking was being used.
100% with you. My Viltrox Epic ($3,500) replaced my Atlas Mercury ($10,000) and I actually prefer the footage out of it as well as build quality.
 
Those are both extremely sharp lenses. I'd think more in terms of the other lens being good vs the Nikon being overly soft.

Contrast is also a big part of sharpness as what we call sharp can just as accurately be described as edge contrast. To me the left image is sharper due to that increased contrast and the slight increase in detail such as down near the mostly green areas near the bottom with patches of white.

Still I'd be happy to shoot macro including product photography with either of these lenses.
One problem I had with my New Nikon 105 Micro was I trying to get too close! Having read that the minimum focus is 11.8 in. from the focal plane, I was forever getting too close!:eek: Caused some anger and discontent before I figured it out! Both of your lenses are capable of excellent work!
 
Getting the hang of this lens a little. On a work trip so playing around on the desk in the hotel after work with the Z8 using Halcyon and Pixel Shift.

100-Focus-Stack-105-5-6-3.jpg

2024-12-13-18-51-45-B-R8-S4.jpg

2024-12-13-19-37-22-B-R8-S4-3.jpg


A tiny portion of a 16 shot pixel shift (180MP) showing the detail in the fabric.
DSC-9577-merged-Enhanced-NR.jpg


A display of how much detail is in a pixel shift image off the Z8 with this lens:

Crop area:

Screenshot-2024-12-13-at-8-21-49-PM.png

DSC-9626-merged.jpg


And detail on the coin face:
DSC-9594-merged-2.jpg
 
Hello,

I’m curious if my expectations are too high or if this lens I bought is normal for image sharpness. I bought the lens a few days ago and tried it on a few things like a dollar bill to compare sharpness with the TT Artisan 100mm 2.8 2x macro I have and was kind of shocked to see very little difference resolution/sharpness wise.

The Nikon has better contrast and color but I’m kind of left wondering if I got a soft copy or my TR Artisan is as good as the Nikon 105mm Z which could be possible.

I had to leave for a week long business trip so brought them both and the Z8 to really thoroughly compare but it’s looking like the Nikon isn’t really better sharpness wise.

I have a 30 day window to return the lens which I may unless I can confirm that it’s fine and I just have a great copy of a $300 TT Artisan.


If anyone has one and a dollar bill would you mind posting a screen capture of the eagles head at 1:1 minimum focus distance and at 100% in Lightroom. Here’s what I’m seeing with the Nikon Left and TT artisan right by default in Lightroom. Noise reduction is 0, default sharpness.

The Nikon is a smidge sharper but they’re extremely close.


I may have also just had sky high expectations due to all the good said about this lens and the TT is just a great value for a manual lens. It hands down outperformed my older FA 100mm 2.8 Pentax lens.

These are at about minimum focus distance on each and the TT at 1:1.
Screenshot-2024-12-06-at-8-51-18-AM.png
Congratulations on an excellent copy of your lens!!
My understanding is than some manufacturers may have slight issues with quality control with copy to copy variation, while Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc have higher consistency with IQ
 
Serrated knife blade. Helps one to understand the DOF of this type of lens.
The Nikon has a much shallower depth of field then the TT artisan at the same labeled aperture. Both are sharp.

Focus stacking automation alone is worth the price on the Nikon. That is an extremely useful feature. The Nikon also supports distance with auto capture which may or may not work on the Tamron 90mm. I think that only works on native lenses.

Anyone on a budget, just wants a manual lens or one to mess around with the TT artisan is very sharp for the price. Also it’s a nice all metal build like lenses in the past. It would be great for a cheap macro desktop setup on a used Z5 or Z7 for not much more than the retail of the 105z.
 
Hello,

I’m curious if my expectations are too high or if this lens I bought is normal for image sharpness. I bought the lens a few days ago and tried it on a few things like a dollar bill to compare sharpness with the TT Artisan 100mm 2.8 2x macro I have and was kind of shocked to see very little difference resolution/sharpness wise.

The Nikon has better contrast and color but I’m kind of left wondering if I got a soft copy or my TR Artisan is as good as the Nikon 105mm Z which could be possible.

I had to leave for a week long business trip so brought them both and the Z8 to really thoroughly compare but it’s looking like the Nikon isn’t really better sharpness wise.

I have a 30 day window to return the lens which I may unless I can confirm that it’s fine and I just have a great copy of a $300 TT Artisan.


If anyone has one and a dollar bill would you mind posting a screen capture of the eagles head at 1:1 minimum focus distance and at 100% in Lightroom. Here’s what I’m seeing with the Nikon Left and TT artisan right by default in Lightroom. Noise reduction is 0, default sharpness.

The Nikon is a smidge sharper but they’re extremely close.


I may have also just had sky high expectations due to all the good said about this lens and the TT is just a great value for a manual lens. It hands down outperformed my older FA 100mm 2.8 Pentax lens.

These are at about minimum focus distance on each and the TT at 1:1.
Screenshot-2024-12-06-at-8-51-18-AM.png
I think you could have picked a better subject for a sharpness test.
 
I think you could have picked a better subject for a sharpness test.
Suggestions of good objects easy to get?

I’m not a professional reviewer with expensive standardized charts. The tiny print on a dollar seemed easy for anyone to have and the tiny cotton fibers difficult to clearly resolve. I wasn’t trying to resolve the ink.
 
Hello,

I’m curious if my expectations are too high or if this lens I bought is normal for image sharpness. I bought the lens a few days ago and tried it on a few things like a dollar bill to compare sharpness with the TT Artisan 100mm 2.8 2x macro I have and was kind of shocked to see very little difference resolution/sharpness wise.

The Nikon has better contrast and color but I’m kind of left wondering if I got a soft copy or my TR Artisan is as good as the Nikon 105mm Z which could be possible.

I had to leave for a week long business trip so brought them both and the Z8 to really thoroughly compare but it’s looking like the Nikon isn’t really better sharpness wise.

I have a 30 day window to return the lens which I may unless I can confirm that it’s fine and I just have a great copy of a $300 TT Artisan.


If anyone has one and a dollar bill would you mind posting a screen capture of the eagles head at 1:1 minimum focus distance and at 100% in Lightroom. Here’s what I’m seeing with the Nikon Left and TT artisan right by default in Lightroom. Noise reduction is 0, default sharpness.

The Nikon is a smidge sharper but they’re extremely close.


I may have also just had sky high expectations due to all the good said about this lens and the TT is just a great value for a manual lens. It hands down outperformed my older FA 100mm 2.8 Pentax lens.

These are at about minimum focus distance on each and the TT at 1:1.
Screenshot-2024-12-06-at-8-51-18-AM.png
For myself Clearly there is no comparison, i have 20-20 vision, even just on the office admin PC and Samsung 4 k screen, the image on the left is superior, i don't feel the image on the right is even close and the lens whatever it is wouldn't be one i would use.

The image on the left has more contrast, accurate colour and clarity, micro contrast, micro colour, is more natural or accurate.

I think if you got into a challenging shoot you would see the image taken with the lens on the left would hold up far better.

That's just what i clearly see.

I would go back to the shop and do a quick shoot on another sample, pop home, compare the shots to be certain you have no issue.

Try a shot with a good smart phone of the $ bill, i think you may be surprised how good or maybe even better it is for close up or even some macro shots, smart phones and small compacts are a really good match for macro or close up work, they almost look scan like.

Only an opinion
 
This and the exposure difference suggest that they might be overstating pupil size.
Could you explain further?
The optical basics are If it is a symmetrical lens design (compared to the Nikon it seems to be) then there is nothing to compensate exposure wise for the inevitable halving of angle of view accompanied by 2 stops loss of light by 1:1.
When this happens there is no way an infinity exposure is possible.
As mentioned earlier the Nikon at 1:1 focus breathes toward wide angle by about 1 stop 1:! effectively opening up the aperture by about 1 stop; accompanied by physically opening up the aperture by 1 stop to get back to an infinity exposure time.
A minor detail with the Nikon - if the aperture is set to f2.8 at infinity focus at 1:1 the aperture cannot be physically opensed - and exposure time is increased to maintain a correct exposure.
 
For myself Clearly there is no comparison, i have 20-20 vision, even just on the office admin PC and Samsung 4 k screen, the image on the left is superior, i don't feel the image on the right is even close and the lens whatever it is wouldn't be one i would use.

The image on the left has more contrast, accurate colour and clarity, micro contrast, micro colour, is more natural or accurate.

I think if you got into a challenging shoot you would see the image taken with the lens on the left would hold up far better.

That's just what i clearly see.

I would go back to the shop and do a quick shoot on another sample, pop home, compare the shots to be certain you have no issue.

Try a shot with a good smart phone of the $ bill, i think you may be surprised how good or maybe even better it is for close up or even some macro shots, smart phones and small compacts are a really good match for macro or close up work, they almost look scan like.

Only an opinion
I just got home so maybe things will look better in my 4k screens vs my MacBook Pro. It’s not my vision it’s 20/15. I have to have that checked annually as I fly planes for a living.

No argument the colors/contrast are better I saw that too from the start. I was just surprised at the sharpness between them.

I’ll grab something with good fine edges at home and try them at distances further back. I have a feeling the TT artisan is just similar up close after shooting some pixel shift and other shots further back last night in the hotel messing around with the lens. I don’t think it’s defective.

That TT artisan was also much sharper than the older Pentax FA 100 2.8 I had until I sold it last month from having a Pentax system in the past. It’s not a soft lens, color/contrast and all that is clearly better on the Nikon. Other reviewers of it have rated it quite highly for sharpness alone.
 
Sharpness depends largely on the user. Most lenses can be very similar in sharpness in good lighting conditions.


I think you should maybe spend some time with this new 105 F2.8 Z macro lens first, get to use it in various scenarios, different lighting conditions.

Look at Bokah, DOF, focusing accuracy, colour accuracy, low light performance, corner to corner performance, evaluate them at all different distances.

The feed back from a few club members is the lens a excellent lens and far superior lens than the DSLR version, one member has said his sample was replaced.

Again if it was me, I would do some sample shots on a second sample lens at your shop of purchase, compare images to your sample, if its ok then give it time to grow on you first, then compare it, if you must, to the cheaper lens.

A key factor as to why i like Nikon is the image file quality and accurate colour.

Only opinion
 
Suggestions of good objects easy to get?

I’m not a professional reviewer with expensive standardized charts. The tiny print on a dollar seemed easy for anyone to have and the tiny cotton fibers difficult to clearly resolve. I wasn’t trying to resolve the ink.
I like the photos you did with the coin and the camera lens. I have a Nikon MC105 macro lens and regard it as very sharp, but no other lens in its league to compare it with.
 
Well I got my Lightbox out at home and placed the lenses back a bit, used a color checker to make DCP profiles for each and shot them side by side. Virtually identical results between the TT Artisan and the Nikon.

The TT artisan is just as good optically. Theres a huge depth of field difference at f/5.6 which both were shot at and the TT Artisan needs more light. But the TT artisan can also go in to 2:1 but the Nikon can focus stack, has VR and weather sealing.

Christopher Frost called the TT artisan the best budget lens by a good amount and we can see why.

I've thrown a bunch of stuff in there and looked back and forth and they're just so close together it's pretty senseless to go any further. The Nikons easier to use as it's not a manual lens and it's got better lens coatings I assume for flare but man these things are so close together in controlled conditions.

This all leaves me questioning returning it and trying the Tamron, a second 105mm or just accepting that the 3x more expensive lens is not really any better optically but has a lot of other good features and not worrying about it.

Nikon Right/TT Left
Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-26-34-PM.png

Nikon Left/TT Right
Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-51-40-PM.png

Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-52-07-PM.png
 
Last edited:
This all leaves me questioning returning it and trying the Tamron, a second 105mm or just accepting that the 3x more expensive lens is not really any better optically but has a lot of other good features and not worrying about it.

Nikon Right/TT Left
Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-26-34-PM.png

Nikon Left/TT Right
Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-51-40-PM.png

Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-52-07-PM.png
Well I got my Lightbox out at home and placed the lenses back a bit, used a color checker to make DCP profiles for each and shot them side by side. Virtually identical results between the TT Artisan and the Nikon.

The TT artisan is just as good optically. Theres a huge depth of field difference at f/5.6 which both were shot at and the TT Artisan needs more light. But the TT artisan can also go in to 2:1 but the Nikon can focus stack, has VR and weather sealing.

Christopher Frost called the TT artisan the best budget lens by a good amount and we can see why.

I've thrown a bunch of stuff in there and looked back and forth and they're just so close together it's pretty senseless to go any further. The Nikons easier to use as it's not a manual lens and it's got better lens coatings I assume for flare but man these things are so close together in controlled conditions.

This all leaves me questioning returning it and trying the Tamron, a second 105mm or just accepting that the 3x more expensive lens is not really any better optically but has a lot of other good features and not worrying about it.

Nikon Right/TT Left
Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-26-34-PM.png

Nikon Left/TT Right
Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-51-40-PM.png

Screenshot-2024-12-16-at-3-52-07-PM.png
 
Back
Top