105 AF-S VR; worth it?

Yes, the FP 120 fits fine. It's not close at all to being a tight fit.

My old style 105 I have found to be my sharpest lens. Maybe you have a bad copy. Or maybe I'm a poor judge of what a sharp lens is.

That's great Dave, in that case I will get one for me. I hope that subal comes up with a port with a manual focussing knob, I am sure they will, as I think this will be a very popular lens among UW photographers. I've been thinking of adding a 1.7x (or 2x) TC to my system, do you have any of these? Do you know how long they are? I mean, would they fit with the 20mm EXR and the FP120?

Yes, I think you are right, and I do think I have a bad 105. I was reviewing some slides, and I think they are not as sharp as the ones I took with the 60 or even other lesser zoom lenses. I am anxious to getting one of these. Dave Marsh (sorry for the last name, too many Daves around here ), do you have any idea when Nikon is going to send you more of these? PM me...

Luiz

Thanks for posting that picture Dave B. It is very encouraging! Although I have the early ND2(H) housing - which does have slightly different controls - which may be the difference? I'll try it again sometime without 3 Nikon guys breathing down my neck (the lens has not been released yet in the UK)! I'll try your technique of mounting the lens on the camera first.

Luiz, I don't think that this applies to you, and I do agree with you that the 105mm is not quite as sharp as the 60mm, but one of the reasons that people get softer images with the 105mm underwater is that they shoot it through too much water. I mention this to make a general point as I see far to many photographers shooting 100/105mm on muck dives when the less fashionable 50/55/60mm would yield much better results.

To quote from Martin Edge's new book that is on my desk "From the outset, let us be quite clear... with our subjects we must endevour to get close physically...if we simply zoom in then our pictures will lack colour, contrast and sharpness".

Alex

I am anxious to getting one of these. Dave Marsh (sorry for the last name, too many Daves around here ), do you have any idea when Nikon is going to send you more of these? PM me... Luiz

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to our sales rep, the 105VR's allocation should not be as tight at the D200's and the 18-200's. With that said... we have many on order and have so far only received one!

Couldn't get out on a boat this weekend. Weather was too rough to try a Kayak dive. So I shot the 105 AF-S in a 7 ft pool this weekend.

As you see you can shoot this lens with a D2X in a Subal housing. You have to be careful not to knock the AF/MF knob to manual focus when you mount the camera in the housing. It is VERY easy to do this.

As a secondary question I include three shots. At F22, F16, and F11. My question is; is the sharpness of the D2X diffraction limited to F16 and less?

First was at F22. This one is F16

Last; F11.

As a secondary question I include three shots. At F22, F16, and F11. My question is; is the sharpness of the D2X diffraction limited to F16 and less?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, according to Herb's math. Check here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12305

But I never felt my images at f22 or above were bad. I guess I will find out when Nikon comes out with a full frame camera, that's only when I will upgrade as I am very please with what I have now...

Luiz

P.S.: Don't avoid shooting at f22 or above because of this. My 1st place macro shot at the Scuba Diving contest was taken with the D2x at f25.

Look at the pictures and tell me where the diffraction limitation is. I don't care about theoretical calculations. I'm a photographer not an engineer.

As an Optometrist I can tell you engineers make the worst patients. ALL Optometrist agree with this.

In further explanation I ran the diffraction theory by several professionally trained photographers. They all looked at me like I was nuts and asked "Where are the photo tests to prove this?"

So here they are. Rather informally I have been shooting both F16 and F22. The better depth of focus makes the F22 images seem sharper to me. These shots lack depth so I was wondering if you can see a difference in sharpness. Yes I realize they are low res. Jpegs. But can you tell anything from them?

Look at the pictures and tell me where the diffraction limitation is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Frankly, I don't see it. Are those 100% crops?

Yes, no crop at all. But of course they have been downsized. I do have to say this is one sharp lens. In the full size photos I don't notice any difference. I do see every tiny bit of dirt at the bottom of the pool.

Sorry Rocha; I'm not arguing with you. Are messages are crossing each other over the internet. We are in agreement. I can't type that fast.

Yep, I noticed it...

Hey Dave, I finally understand diffraction limits thanks to this nicely illustrated article:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm

Take a look; the section about diffracion limitation in real-world photography (bottom of page) is exactly what I expected.

Luiz

Good link. I have studied diffraction optics in school. It is used in ophthalmic implants and contact lenses. Without a lot of success I might add.

A careful reading of the article mentions other factors that figure into the "quality" of the final image.

My interest comes about as I mentioned previously from the comments of professionally trained photographers. As I previously mentioned when I explained how the D2X was diffraction limited their reaction was. Have you done test shots to see if this is true/significant? I have shot a number of shots at both F16 and F22. Often at F11 as well. Usually the F22 image looks best. I think full size raw images is necessary to evaluate this.. And of course a 23" Apple display. I don't think you can evaluate it with internet postings. I thought I'd ask though. Mostly to see if anyone else had made any tests and come to any conclusions on what they think the best F stop for macro would be. With the D2X.

Thanks for the input and link.

I took a few pictures with the 105 AF-S on Sat April 8th.

A few more

I will see if I have enough pictures to set up a web gallery so you can get a better idea of how the lens did.

I had electronics "issues" that limited what I could get.

I also kept accidently knocking the M/AF switch to M. I eventually had to put a small piece of tape over it to keep from knocking to the wrong postion.

Some shots were with the MacroMate flip lens. This lens AFs well with the MacroMate lens. Something the old 105 and 60 mm can hardly do at all.

how did you knock the switch from auto to mnual? I would assume once it's in the housing/port there is nothing to hit it with.

Their is enough room for the lens to fit through the housings port opening but it is very easy to bump the switch to manual when doing so. I have only succeeded in not bumping the switch once of about 5 times I have mounted the camera and lens in the housing. You are guiding the lens past the MF gear and you seem to bump it. The tape seems to have solved the problem.