Close up/Macro comparison.....F mount 105mm vs Z 100-400

[EricBowles]

I think for skittish creatures (or creatures you do not want to get too close to, say snakes for me anyway), working distance is very important. The Z 100-400 does well here.

When I was in Costa Rica a few years ago, I used the 70-180 micro Nikkor and the 300 mm PF (which has a nice MFD) lenses for frogs, butterflies, small lizards and the like. On a D500. Going now, I would likely choose the Z 100-400 and have the Z 1.4x TC along.

It’s also the case that the Z 24-70 f4 and Z 24-120 f4 have good close focus ability if you have them along, but shorter working distances.

Here is Thom Hogan’s calculation of minimum working distances for some Z lenses.

Macro Magnifications & Working Distances | Thom Hogan

maximum magnification and minimum working distance for Nikon Z-mount lenses

www.zsystemuser.com

As a practical matter, you may not want to photograph skittish or dangerous subjects with a 105 macro and minimum focus distance. It loses too much magnification as you move away from minimum focus distance. Using the PhotoPills app above, the magnification of the 105mm lens at 24 inches is 0.26 - and at 30 inches it is just 0.15. That's about the same as the 100-400mm lens at 8 feet or 96 inches, and the latter is at 0.38 at 30 inches. In addition, you have the option of using extension tubes or teleconverters with the longer lens.

This is with the 400mm f/4.5 and 18mm of extension with a distance of around 8-9 feet.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[JAS]

Beautiful capture and response. Technical, practical and thoughtful all at once. Thank you.

 

[ButlerKid]

As a practical matter, you may not want to photograph skittish or dangerous subjects with a 105 macro and minimum focus distance. It loses too much magnification as you move away from minimum focus distance. Using the PhotoPills app above, the magnification of the 105mm lens at 24 inches is 0.26 - and at 30 inches it is just 0.15. That's about the same as the 100-400mm lens at 8 feet or 96 inches, and the latter is at 0.38 at 30 inches. In addition, you have the option of using extension tubes or teleconverters with the longer lens.

This is with the 400mm f/4.5 and 18mm of extension with a distance of around 8-9 feet.
View attachment 45181

Is there a chart that indicates for 100, 200, 300 and 400mm focal lengths, how much magnification you get with various sizes of extension tubes. I don't do a lot of macro.....and am thinking about buying maybe 2 extension tubes for the Z9.

My one concern is that the 100-400 is awfully heavy for me.....so I probably need to take the 105 to use when I get tired........

Thanks!

 

[Roy]

As a practical matter, you may not want to photograph skittish or dangerous subjects with a 105 macro and minimum focus distance. It loses too much magnification as you move away from minimum focus distance. Using the PhotoPills app above, the magnification of the 105mm lens at 24 inches is 0.26 - and at 30 inches it is just 0.15. That's about the same as the 100-400mm lens at 8 feet or 96 inches, and the latter is at 0.38 at 30 inches. In addition, you have the option of using extension tubes or teleconverters with the longer lens.

This is with the 400mm f/4.5 and 18mm of extension with a distance of around 8-9 feet.
View attachment 45181

I hope Nikon releases a 200mm Z macro lens for bugs etc...

 

[DRwyoming]

Is there a chart that indicates for 100, 200, 300 and 400mm focal lengths, how much magnification you get with various sizes of extension tubes. I don't do a lot of macro.....and am thinking about buying maybe 2 extension tubes for the Z9.

This article and calculator let's you figure out how extension tubes improve magnification at the minimum focusing distance for various focal length lenses.

Macro Extension Tubes & Close-up Lenses

www.cambridgeincolour.com

 

[Chris K]

Coming to this thread a bit late, so apologies if I'm parroting anyone.

I've shot for many years with both a 100mm-ish and 100-400 for macro. I find it MUCH easier to shoot a 105 macro than a 100-400 for the vast majority of subjects. A few reasons:

1. Controlling lighting with flash is extremely beneficial when shooting close-ups. Shooting flash at 105mm-like working distances, you can place flash lighting whereever you want by a variety of methods:
   1. Front-mounted twin flash (easiest)
   2. Bracket-mounted hotshoe flash (most flexible)
   3. Lumiquest Softbox (or similar) with on-shoe flash (you probably already have the equipment)
2. On the other hand, with a 100-400, light will always pretty much be 90% front-lighting. It's very difficult to get top/side light at 400mm 1:4 working distances.
3. The 105mm kit is MUCH easier to handle. It's much lighter, (less wrist fatigue). It's also much more compact... like hanging onto a softball instead of broomstick. This is especially important with the Z9, as it's pretty heavy on its own.
4. The working distance of the 100-400 is beneficial for dragonflies.... and that's about it. I'm a clod, but I don't have much trouble getting as close as I like without spooking most bugs at 105mm. Even butterflies are easy enough at 105mm, as you don't tend to shoot them at 1:1 due to their large wings.
5. I find 105mm a sweet spot for framing. You can more easily maneuver around leaves, and you have to move yourself much less if you want a different angle. At 400mm, your "orbit" to your subject requires you to move large distances, and in some cases you'd want a ladder to shoot down on a subject.
6. It's much easier to acquire your subject with 105mm than with 400mm, similar to how it is with long tele shooting, but to a greater degree.

A few notes about tubes and TCs:

• A TC will turn your 105/2.8 into a 147/4, just like it works for telephotos. That means a tighter shot, less DOF, less light, and more magnification. That said, I make heavy use of the 1.4x on my 105 macro. (Or at least I did until the Z 105, which won't accept it .) My rule of thumb was, use the TC for skittish bugs or if I needed >1:1.
• A TC on a 105/2.8 will also increase your maximum apparent magnification to 1.4:1.
• Combining a TC and tubes will get you VERY close with a 105mm macro. I suggest testing rather than doing the math, because every macro lens has a difficult focal length at MFD. Just point at a ruler with mm and calculate against 36mm. As an example, my Canon 100/2.8USM got to 2.16:1 when set up like this: (camera) -> (TC) -> (36mm tube) -> (lens). And, I should say, always put the tubes between the lens and TC to increase their effect. (And note that you cannot do this with the Z TC because Nikon are big jerks.)
• Remember that racking a lens to MFD costs light. Not a problem with "normal" lenses, but definitely a factor with at macro distances. So if you're expecting to build a TC/tube/lens contraption and shoot bugs at 2:1, you are going to have to make use of very high ISOs to keep your shutter speeds reasonable (I like 1/500 for bugs), or rely on flash.
• If you're looking to get closer on a 100-400, don't use tubes. The effects of tubes are minimal at long focal lengths. This is an oversimplification, but if the Nikon 100-400 gets to 0.4x magnification, you can mentally translate that to 400mm*0.4 extension... 160mm extension without tubes. To get to 1:1, you'd need 400mm total extension, which would mean you'd need 240mm worth of tubes. You'd have to stack ten 24mm tubes!
• A Canon 500D diopter will get you closer with a 100-400 than tubes. That said, the 100-400 gets pretty close on its own, so I'd question whether you might want to simply crop than buy an expensive diopter and lose infinity focus. In my experience, putting macro gear on a 100-400 causes birds to do VERY interesting things, because they know you can't shoot them!

Long story short, if you're going out to shoot macro, a 105mm is the most flexible option for all subjects. If you're going out ONLY to shoot dragonflies or butterflies AND you're OK with ambient-only, a 100-400 will work well.

 

[Tommie]

Question… would extension tubes on my Z MC 105mm maintain IQ and magnification while letting me stand further away from my subject? I mean to say, I’d like to get close to 1:1 magnification for smaller subjects, but have the flexibility of a 200mm macro. Nikon does have one, but it’s manual focus (I think) and pricier than my 105. Thanks!

 

[DRwyoming]

Question… would extension tubes on my Z MC 105mm maintain IQ and magnification while letting me stand further away from my subject? I mean to say, I’d like to get close to 1:1 magnification for smaller subjects, but have the flexibility of a 200mm macro. Nikon does have one, but it’s manual focus (I think) and pricier than my 105. Thanks!

No, extension tubes let you focus closer and that allows greater magnification but only due to getting closer to your subjects. They don't change the focal length of the lens at all, they just allow that same focal length to focus closer (have a shorter minimum focusing distance) which in turn means larger subject sizes but only if you can get in closer to your subjects.

A teleconverter on the other hand does increase the focal length and allow either larger subject sizes at the same distance or the same subject size when working from a bit further back. So a 105mm lens with a 1.4x TC becomes a 147mm lens that still focuses as close as the original 105mm lens. Adding a 2x TC to a 105mm macro lens gives you a 210mm macro lens that still focuses as close as the original 105mm lens.

In the Nikon lineup you can add TCs to the F mount 105mm AF-S micro lens but unfortunately the 105mm Z mount lens isn't compatible with either of the Z mount teleconverters which is why I've hung onto my F mount 105mm AF-S micro lens for use with Z mount cameras.

 

[Tommie]

No, extension tubes let you focus closer and that allows greater magnification but only due to getting closer to your subjects. They don't change the focal length of the lens at all, they just allow that same focal length to focus closer (have a shorter minimum focusing distance) which in turn means larger subject sizes but only if you can get in closer to your subjects.

A teleconverter on the other hand does increase the focal length and allow either larger subject sizes at the same distance or the same subject size when working from a bit further back. So a 105mm lens with a 1.4x TC becomes a 147mm lens that still focuses as close as the original 105mm lens. Adding a 2x TC to a 105mm macro lens gives you a 210mm macro lens that still focuses as close as the original 105mm lens.

In the Nikon lineup you can add TCs to the F mount 105mm AF-S micro lens but unfortunately the 105mm Z mount lens isn't compatible with either of the Z mount teleconverters which is why I've hung onto my F mount 105mm AF-S micro lens for use with Z mount cameras.

Thanks… Always learning I’ll be on a quest now to determine the best lighting enhancements to help with optimum apertures for good depth of field. I like the dual flash system with flegible arms… but a bit pricey. As are flash rings around the hood. We’ll see. Appreciate your quick response!

 

[DRwyoming]

Thanks… Always learning I’ll be on a quest now to determine the best lighting enhancements to help with optimum apertures for good depth of field. I like the dual flash system with flegible arms… but a bit pricey. As are flash rings around the hood. We’ll see. Appreciate your quick response!

Probably best to start your own thread on this question rather than hijack this thread on lenses.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

GOAL: I will be going to Costa Rica and doing the usual close up stuff.....dart frogs, vipers, etc. I own both the 100-400 and the F mount 105 micro. I need to decide if I take BOTH the 100-400 AND the F mount 105 micro or can make do with just the 100-400 lens.

Honestly, you would be better off with an OM-1 and a 90F3.5 and considering the cost of Costa Rica, that combo is chump change.

 

[Tommie]

Honestly, you would be better off with an OM-1 and a 90F3.5 and considering the cost of Costa Rica, that combo is chump change.

Forgive me for saying this, but I could NEVER afford to switch systems… my Nikon kit to anything else… considering that I have $20K invested in Z bodies and lenses already. Perhaps were I a pro and earned substantial $$… but as an enthusiast with modest means… never. I also have the 100-400 and the Z 105… Seems that both together would cover much ground. The size of my most desired subjects might determine the choice of lenses to bring along. Good travels to ya!

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Forgive me for saying this, but I could NEVER afford to switch systems…

I am not proposing that you switch to OM-1 and give up your Nikon kit.....except for macro. The advantages that you get from a FF Nikon kit for other wildlife subjects that you will find in Costa Rica actually become disadvantages in macro.

In macro you want a greater DOF so that more of the subject is in focus. In the 90f3.5 you are using a dedicated supermacro lens that will shoot at f9-f11 without diffraction. With the OM-1 you are getting a camera that can in-camera focus stack hand-held.

Regards,
Tom

 

[StefanSC]

Question… would extension tubes on my Z MC 105mm maintain IQ and magnification while letting me stand further away from my subject? I mean to say, I’d like to get close to 1:1 magnification for smaller subjects, but have the flexibility of a 200mm macro. Nikon does have one, but it’s manual focus (I think) and pricier than my 105. Thanks!

I'd look into the old Sigma 150mm f2.8s for Nikon F mount. They have a ton of working distance by themselves, sharp as can be, they take the Sigma 1.4x APO TC with minimal loss of image quality and they can be found for decent prices on the used market.

The older non-os one is manual focus on FTZ but the newer OIS one should also have AF.