Why Did YOU Buy $299 Nikon Macro 120mm f/5.6 Nikkor-AM(ED) Lens with Copal #0?

[Andre Noble]

Here is a poll meant to be taken lightly. It refers to the Nikkor AM 120 Macro lens using ED glass, which B&H photo has had on sale since December for the fantastic price of $299, down from an approximate $1100 normal price. Nikon has discontinued their LF lenses. B&H has occasionally dropped prices significantly on their remaining stock, but nothing like this before.

Which of the following choices most closely depicts the reason you bought this lens?

The multiple responses option is enabled.

[Dave_B]

It will be part of my estate. Twenty years from now when a ton of Nikkor lenses show up on Ebay, the posters here will be talking to each other about the clown in New Jersey who croaked and had a lot of Nikkor lenses who never used them very well but collected them energetically. They will tisk, tisk and buy a few. Lenses are like fine watches. They last a long time. You don't really own them, you take care of them for a while and after you pass from the scene, someone else then has the responsibility to take care of them.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Ralph Barker]

Thanks for enabling the multiple-response option, Andre. I wouldn't have been able to select the one that most applies in my case. :o

[andy bessette]

For frivolous reasons, I have limited my lens purchases to Nikkor, for both 35mm and 4X5 formats. As a macro lens is an important element of my kit, I had planned to buy this lens anyway. When this limited-time offering showed up, it was too good a deal to pass up. I can identify with what Dave B said.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Walter Calahan]

OK, wasn't planning on buying one, then I saw some really nice close-up work from a friend which inspired me, ideas kept swirling in my brain, yesterday everything came together, so this morning I bought the damn lens.

Let's see what happens. Grin.

fyi - some one is selling the exact lens new on eBay and the starting price is way above B&H. Sucker born every minute.

[Ole Tjugen]

I gave in in the end and bought one too.

A true macro lens is the one kind of lens I didn't already own, and at 1:1 the difference is very visible. While I have plenty of lenses that are great to 1:3 - or reversed from 3:1 - there's that bit in the middle where I don't get as good results as I'd like. And sometimes I don't feel like using the 35mm camera just because it has a macro lens...

[Dan Fromm]

I didn't buy one. Don't need it, have other macro lenses that are good enough. And have better uses for the money, even though the price was very very attractive.

[darr]

I didn't buy one. Don't need it, have other macro lenses that are good enough. And have better uses for the money, even though the price was very very attractive.

Same here.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here, too.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I was bored. I still feel that way reading this thread.

[BrianShaw]

I hadn't heard of this great opportunity. Sounds like it is a bargain at twice the price. I really need a 90 more than I need a 120. If I buy this lens, spend some of the savings on a bag bellows, will using these two items together give me the same effect as a 90? :confused:

[Ole Tjugen]

I hadn't heard of this great opportunity. Sounds like it is a bargain at twice the price. I really need a 90 more than I need a 120. If I buy this lens, spend some of the savings on a bag bellows, will using these two items together give me the same effect as a 90? :confused:

Not at all.

The 120 is a macro lens, optimised for 1:1. It doesn't cover 4x5" at infinity. A bag bellows is just about useless with this lens, since you need 240mm of bellows extension to focus at 1:1 with a 120mm lens.

By "90mm" I assume you mean a 90mm wide-angle lens? That's a completely different beast!

[BrianShaw]

Oh, Ole... my apologies to you. I should have smile, grinned, winked. I know that solution wouldn't work... this was supposed to be a light-hearted thread so I was attempting to be light-hearted. Sorry.

[Ole Tjugen]

Brian, If I had had one less glass of that nice Barolo with dinner (all right two less, then), I would have read your name and seen your implicit smilies. :D

[Ole Tjugen]

Which leads back to my increasingly strong conviction that "there are no stupid questions, only stupid people". :p

Tonight I was the stupid one. :D

[Dominique Labrosse]

I did not get one because I don't like shooting that wide. If the deal was on a 210mm then I'd jump at it for sure.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

I gave in in the end and bought one too.



You bought a new and modern lens! Wow. :D

[Marko]

Which leads back to my increasingly strong conviction that "there are no stupid questions, only stupid people". :p

Tonight I was the stupid one. :D


Stupid people don't know they are stupid.

Those who think they are simply need better vine.

:D

[roteague]

I bought one because the lens gave me coverage in an area I didn't have already, namely LF Macro. I'm not a gear head, I don't collect old cameras or lenses. Every piece of equipment I have is for a specific purpose.

[Brian K]

Ole bought one? I guess he must be planning on having it brass plated....
I was tempted to buy one, but I already own a few macros and at this point rarely shoot macro. If it came in a copal 1 I would have bought it just for the shutter.

Still at $299 what a deal...

[Ole Tjugen]

You bought a new and modern lens! Wow. :D

Yes - first new lens. Except perhaps the 150 Germinar-W I bought a while ago, and the 210/6.1 Xenar which had only been taken out of its factory wrapping.

Both do a great job on the Carbon Infinity, which while I didn't buy it new is certainly the most "modern" LF camera I've ever seen!

[Ray Fenio]

I had a 135 repro-claron for macro work but this is a superior lens. Only my second new lens. I purchased a 240 Docter lens 6 months ago, the rest are used.

[BradS]

I didn't buy one. I don't plan to either. Although I would probably use it, I really don't need it as I find no problems shooting at 1:1 with the old 135mm Xenar or, even the 127mm Ektar that I already have. Now, if it were a 210mm or 240mm Nikkor-W or perhaps the 300mm Nikkor-M at similar savings, I'd be all over that stuff!

[sanking]

I didn't buy one. I don't plan to either. Although I would probably use it, I really don't need it as I find no problems shooting at 1:1 with the old 135mm Xenar or, even the 127mm Ektar that I already have. Now, if it were a 210mm or 240mm Nikkor-W or perhaps the 300mm Nikkor-M at similar savings, I'd be all over that stuff!


I am with Brad. I did not buy one and don 't plan to buy one, though the herd mentality almost pulled my strings. Since I already have a perfectly nice 125mm f/8 Fujinoin SWD that covers 5X7 with loads of movement at infinity, and seems to give nice results in close-up work, I figured that in the end I could live without a 120mm macro lens that does not even cover 4X5 at infinity.

So I saved my $299 to waste on another ill-conceived project.

Sandy King

[Ted Harris]

Yanno, if I didn't do macro work with some frequency, work where I thought I could pay for the lens in a reasonable period of time, I wouldn't have bought it either. It is a very specialized lens. Very nice and crisp at infinity but without much in the way of coverage. I hope that not too many folks bought it without thinking through what it is for. For me, it is a nice complement to my 180 Makro Symmar HM at nearly 1000 less than the comperable Schneider lens.

[Hugo Zhang]

Does it cover 8x10? If not, I'd rather put that $299 on an old brass lens that covers at least 8x10.

[Ralph Barker]

Does it cover 8x10? . . .

Perhaps, given enough bellows extension and a very close subject. ;)

[Ed Richards]

How about someone with one trying it at infinity on 4x5 at F22 and seeing what it does cover and reporting back.

[cobalt]

I didn't buy one. I don't plan to either. Although I would probably use it, I really don't need it as I find no problems shooting at 1:1 with the old 135mm Xenar or, even the 127mm Ektar that I already have. Now, if it were a 210mm or 240mm Nikkor-W or perhaps the 300mm Nikkor-M at similar savings, I'd be all over that stuff!

Brad...funny, I almost ordered one, until I found my 127 Ektar illuminates the entire frame with the bellows ony my 5x7 fully extended.

[Dan Fromm]

Brad, Percy, I like tessar types optimized for shooting at distance as much as anyone else, and I use most of the ones I own. In fact I have three TTH tessar type repro lenses that are supposed to be optimized for 1:1 but, like tessar type Apo Nikkors, also do very well at distance. But these beasts are all f/9.

Using a lens as asymmetrical as a tessar are outside of the range of magnifications its optimized for isn't the best idea, especially if the lens is relatively fast.

If you are satisfied with the results that f/4.5 tessar types give around 1:1, I suggest that you check your technique and your expectations. There's a considerable difference between, say, the image quality I get at 1:1 from my 100/6.3 Reichert Neupolar my 101/4.5 Ektar. The 100 Neupolar is, by the way, a reversed tessar. That is, a tessar type with the cemented doublet facing the subject. I would not be surprised if the 120 AM-ED I didn't buy were a little better than the Neupolar at 1:1.

Percy, an argument from similar triangles guarantees that a lens that covers 3x4 at infinity will cover 5 x 7 at 1:1. Nice that you confirmed it, but so what?

Cheers,

Dan

[naturephoto1]

I didn't purchase one because I already had the Schneider 120mm Makro Symmar HM lens.

Rich

[Kirk Fry]

If the sucker had covered a 4X5 at infinity, it would have been a no brainer, as it is my 150 mm G-claron will make the cut. $300 is still $300. In the end it did not make the "do I really, really, NEED this lens" cut. At macro distances, I wager, it would be hard to tell the difference in the negatives and at infinity not so hard.

K

[Ted Harris]

At true macro distances, assuming your subject fully covers the frame as opposed to being just in the center, you can definitely see the difference in performance between a macro lens and a normal plasmat. Where they shine is at the edges. But, again .... if you aren't working in the range of 1:1 and larger then there is absolutely no advantage to a macro lens .... and that is !:1, not nearly 1:1. I once did a test of the 180 Macro Symmar HM v the 180 Apo Sironar 180 and at almost 1:1 there was no discernible difference .... rackthe bellows out the additional silly millimeter or two to get to true 1:1 and the differences in the corners was evident.

[jnantz]

didn't need one, so i didnt' get one ..
the only macro work i do is with
a graflex slr ...

[Jan Pedersen]

Counting those numbers from the poll indicate that 116 people bought this lens!
Would be interesting to get the real number from B&H

I did buy one and have used it a couple of times, it's not going to be the most used lens but having it in the bag could open up for some oportunities.

[DrPablo]

Perhaps, given enough bellows extension and a very close subject. ;)

A friend on another forum has been working on an 8x10 shot with the lens. It won't cover 8x10 at 1:1, but it will at 2:1 or greater.


Counting those numbers from the poll indicate that 116 people bought this lens!
Would be interesting to get the real number from B&H

So when is B&H going to give a comparable price on their other discontinued Nikon lenses??

[Joe Forks]

Counting those numbers from the poll indicate that 116 people bought this lens!

I don't think that is right since only 96 folks voted in the poll and multiple answers were enabled.

I bought one though!

Best
Joe

[Andre Noble]

Yeah, I shoud have placed an explicit question in the beginning of poll options asking who actually bought one at $299 from B&H.

From the results so far, about at least 30 people bought one from them recently(?).

[Jan Pedersen]

Ups, didn't see that. Was just counting the numbers next to the bars except for the last 3


So when is B&H going to give a comparable price on their other discontinued Nikon lenses??

I'm watching too but guess it depend a little on the inventory?

[Ron Marshall]

At true macro distances, assuming your subject fully covers the frame as opposed to being just in the center, you can definitely see the difference in performance between a macro lens and a normal plasmat. Where they shine is at the edges. But, again .... if you aren't working in the range of 1:1 and larger then there is absolutely no advantage to a macro lens .... and that is !:1, not nearly 1:1. I once did a test of the 180 Macro Symmar HM v the 180 Apo Sironar 180 and at almost 1:1 there was no discernible difference .... rackthe bellows out the additional silly millimeter or two to get to true 1:1 and the differences in the corners was evident.

Ted, how close to 1:1 before seeing a difference between the image quality from a macro lens and say an APO Sironar of the same focal length? For example, would there be no discernable difference at a magnification of 0.9X? (0.9X would be a focus shift of about 18mm from 1:1)

[Tim Hyde]

I bought one because I have a very hard time resisting advice from Ted Harris. I'm working on it but so far have failed.

[Ole Tjugen]

Well, that was quick...

I received mine today. Unfortunately I won't get around to playing with it for about a month, but I do intend to do a "120mm close range shootout" between that, a 120 Heliar, a 120 Angulon, and a 120 Aplanat. :)

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I got one, and it is a dang fun thing to use! I bought mine for a specific project and now that I am using it, I am looking forward to a long relationship.

Also, like Tim said, Ted is tough to resist!

[Doug Dolde]

I never wanted a macro lens at any price....didn't buy this one either.

[Ted Harris]

Ron, nope, no discernable difference at .9x. As I said, th etrue macro lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon shine at 1:1 and larger magnifications. They will not necessarily outperform an Apo Sironar N at .9x. In fact remembering back the thest I did was with the 180 Apo Sirnoar N, the 180 Makro Symmar HM 180 and the Apo Macro Sironar N 180. I was doing the test with a piece of jewelry, a Tiffany silver mesh necklace that was made of literally thousands of silver loops, each loop no more than a mm across and a little Tiffany tag on the side. I had it arranged so it filled the frame and had it slightly stacked so I could get an idea of depth of field (not much of course). I was controlling the magnification by moving the entire camera oneway or the other on the rail on my Horseman LS (rail is marked in mm). Bob Salomon had told me to look closely at the performances at the edgtes of the frame as that is where I would see the difference and, as always, he was absolutely correct. When I moved into 1:1 exactly and larger I could see a distinct difference in the resolution of the tiny links out near the edges of the frame between the two Macro's and the standard Plasmat. That test was several years ago but I have some recollection of posting the results here so you might want to do a search. I will too and see what I find.

Again I want to underscore that the purpose of these lenses is to work at magnifications of 1:1 and greater. You get no advantage from them at less than a 1:1 magnification.

[Ed Richards]

Ted,

I assume that depends on what you are comparing it to. Don't some lens designs start to break down in the 1:3 area?

[Dan Fromm]

Ed, the lenses' optimizations are all over the map. I don't know about breaking down, but and for example if you go to Schneider's archive and read the blurbs on Comparons (Xenars tweaked for enlarging), Componons (plain ol' Symmars tweaked for enlarging), and Componon-Ss (Symmar-Ss tweaked for enlarging) you'll find a few interesting statements.

None of these lenses is recommended for use below 2x, which corresponds to shooting higher than 1:2. The Comparon's recomended range is 2x - 6x, the plasmats' is 2x - 10x. From 2x - 6x (shooting from 1:2 to 1:6) they say the Comparon does better than the plasmats. I don't know why, but I usually believe Schneider's claims. Finally, for 10x to 40x they recommend using the (sorry, I may have got the name wrong) Componon-G. Incidentally, this advice has some practical importance for my low magnification flower photography.

Cheers,

Dan

[Oren Grad]

Finally, for 10x to 40x they recommend using the (sorry, I may have got the name wrong) Componon-G.

Rodagon-G?

[Ron Marshall]

Thanks Ted.

[Dan Fromm]

Rodagon-G?
Oren, thanks for prodding me to look it up. Schneider's lens for large enlargements is the G-Componon, Rodenstock's is the Rodagon-G.

[Oren Grad]

Oren, thanks for prodding me to look it up. Schneider's lens for large enlargements is the G-Componon, Rodenstock's is the Rodagon-G.

Dan - thank you for double-checking. I was not aware of the G-Componon and for some reason missed it in my latest meander through the Schneider-Kreuznach archive. Found the brochure now, though, and have just added a copy to my own archive.

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise. Although the product lines are diverging just a bit more now as overall demand falls and the film-oriented offerings are being pared down in different ways, for a long while it did seem as though Rodenstock and Schneider were competing all across the board.

Cheers...

[mdd99]

To flesh out the essence of the original question (somewhat), for those of you who shoot macro, what do you shoot and how do your results compare with shooting macro in smaller formats? As a landscape photographer, I've always found 4x5 macro a challenge, especially the setup.

[Dan Fromm]

mdd99, I doubt than any of the responses you'll get will be very similar. Many, many are the reasons ... Chacun a son gout.

I went up to 2x3 from 35 mm because 35 mm is just too small. With it, if I got sufficient fine detail in the main subject there was no room in the frame for its setting. If I squeezed the setting into the frame then magnification was too low to keep fine detail in the main subject. And I wanted both.

2x3 lets me shoot easily in the range 1:10 to 1:1, sometimes as high as 2:1, while getting slides and negatives that print much better at 8x10 than the best I can do with 35 mm. The best I can do with 35 requires KM; I still have some in the freezer but of course can't replace what I use. Velvia doesn't come close, please don't suggest that I try it. I did and hated it.

I do have to work fairly hard to resist the temptation to fill the frame with the main subject when shooting 2x3. This can produce very nice shots, but there's always the risk of insufficient DoF with small subjects.

I have a couple of projects going that require good b/w images of objects roughly 2-3 mm x at most 10 mm. 35 mm, with TMX, is more than good enough for this application, I've found no benefit from using 2x3.

Oh, and by the way, for shooting fish in aquaria (or other small rapidly-moving subjects) an SLR is required. So there the practical largest format is 6x7. For this application my Nikons shine, my Graphics are pretty nearly useless. Understand that I got into macro in the first place to shoot fish, discovered other subjects some time later.