For a detailed comparison of all of Nikon’s Series-E lenses, click here!
It shouldn’t come to surprise anyone when I say I love the 100mm focal length on APS-C cameras. What should be an awkward length too long for “typical” portraits (usual range is 85-135 on 35mm camera), but too short for a long telephoto (those start around 180-200mm)–becomes an “up close and personal” portrait lens useful in separating subjects from a crowd, or emphasizing certain features of people. With a stop-and-a-third slower maximum aperture than my 105mm f/1.8 AI-s, the degree of separation on the 100mm f/2.8 E is somewhat less, and the “pop” starts to fade away (shallow depth of field is an aspect of photography I love to employ). Also, in low light and at max aperture, it can be a bummer to still have to either slow the shutter speeds (risking motion blur) to stay at low ISOs, or to raise the ISOs (resulting in more noise) to keep the shutter speed high. When shooting conditions go south, compromises have to be made. So be it.
Regardless, the 100mm f/2.8 E has to have redeeming qualities, right? You bet. I do like this lens very much, for reasons detailed below–so much so, I’m not particularly sure which lens (the 105mm or 100mm E) I enjoy the best overall. There’ll be a section discussing that near the end, but let’s get onto the meat-and-potatoes!
Specifications
Full Name: Nikon 100mm 1:2.8 Series-E (note, lacks the Nikkor designation)
Dimensions: 2.25 inches/57.5mm long, 2.5 inches/62.5mm in diameter, with a weight of 7.6 ounces/215 grams. Note: though not as light as either the 50mm E or 35mm E, the 100mm E really isn’t a lens that adds real-world weight to any camera, from a DSLR to a compact mirrorless.
Close Focus: Marked at 3.5 feet/1 meter, but you can get a little closer. Though not a macro lens, you can get tight framing for large flowers. On m4/3 you can “get a little closer” due to the larger crop ratio
Miscellaneous: 7 straight-bladed aperture stopping down to f/22, 52mm filter thread, metal mount. When shot on an APS-C camera, the field of view in 35mm terms is 150mm (up-close-and-personal portrait length), and on m4/3 the field of view is 200mm (long telephoto).
Close-focus adds about .8 inches/20mm in length. Pardon the dust.
The “Feel”
Read: Very small and lightweight
One characteristic I will now be taking into consideration for lens reviews is a made-up term observed in the 50mm f/1.8 E, “shootability”. Defined in Matthew Durr’s short list of personal photography terms, shootability is a characteristic of a lens and/or camera that measures the amount of ease, efficiency, and enjoyment in the operation of said lens/camera. Typically lenses that are lightweight (check), are compact (check two), focus easily and smoothly with a solid aperture control (check three), and have more admirable optical qualities than bad (check four) will have a high shootability rating. With all four categories met, the 100mm E (along with most of the Series-E lenses) has a high rate of shootability on any camera–the smaller camera the better.
Of course, it doesn’t hurt when cost is taken into consideration (not a pillar of shootability), as most of the Series-E lenses can be had at a bargain compared to their Nikkor AI-s counterpart. After some careful hunting on eBay, I found my copy for about $80/€63. The most comparable lens (Nikon Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI-s), goes on the market for about $180/€142–over twice the price and weight (15 ounces/425 grams) of the 100mm E.
Aesthetically, the 100mm E looks great with any black camera, even more so than the 50mm E with its faux chrome grab ring. For future reference, there are two versions of almost all the Series-E lenses. The first version (this lens) sports an all-black body with a plastic (yet firm) grab ring. The second version–made to look more like the AI-s Nikkors–has a faux-chrome grab ring, and sometimes the ribs on the focus ring are changed. Optically, both versions of these lenses are the same, and in the real world the faux-chrome ring isn’t missed. If anything, the bright ring is annoying as it reflects more sunlight, not a good thing when the camera is always close to the face!
Performance
Summary
I’m positive the 100mm E is the one “sleeper-hit” lens I set out to find in the Series-E line-up. In most all respects, the lens performs great, mainly in its uniform sharpness. Other areas, such as flare control and the character of the bokeh, leave some to be desired. That said, at $80/€63, the 100mm E is a stunning lens for the price once shootability is combined with its optical performance. I recommend it highly to APS-C cameras as well as m4/3 cameras (especially those with IBIS) thanks to the great central sharpness. If that isn’t enough for you, take a look at all the detailed information below.
Sharpness
Though sharpness is supposed to be only a small component in a lens’ performance, many feel it is the deciding factor between a good or bad optic. I personally fall somewhere in the middle. I love seeing pixel-level sharpness (especially with a 24MP sensor), but it isn’t terribly important that all my shots are sharp when viewing at 100% on screen. With that in mind, I have tested the 100mm E to be useably sharp in its entire aperture range, but noticeably sharp from f/4-16. In the 5-stop range both detail and contrast are great–moving outwards into the optimum aperture is like going from really sharp to razor sharp.
Two side notes: there is some field curvature with the lens, but isn’t noticeable in real-world shooting. Also, the 100mm E suffers from a bit of focus shift starting right at f/4 affecting all other apertures. This applies only to DSLR shooters, as the critical focus point at all other apertures is different from wide-open (the aperture you use to focus). Try focusing with the depth of field preview button held down for more accurate results.
Focus distance for these tests was about 6 feet. This test chart prints well above 300 dpi on an 8×12. The file can be found at the site at the top of the chart. It technically prints at 12×18 at 300 dpi, but the prints I try making at that size do not come out sharp enough for lens tests.
See what I mean on sharpness with the following 100% (meaning, clicking on them won’t make them bigger) center crops by aperture:
f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
f/11
f/16
f/22
Starting wide-open, there is sufficient detail to render most all scenes as appearing “sharp”. The only things keeping detail from being perceived as very sharp is the lowered contrast due to veiling haze, common in all fast aperture lenses. At f/4, contrast gets a huge bump, as does sharpness (though it isn’t razor sharp, yet). The difference between sharpness from f/5.6-8 isn’t too large in real-world shooting, but if you must, absolute critical detail is reached at f/8. Contrast also peaks at this aperture, so there. At f/11, sharpness-and-contrast-robbing diffraction can be seen, but ignored. By f/16, the diffraction becomes more noticeable, but all the detail and much of the contrast still remains. Finally at f/22 the amount of visible detail and contrast is about equal to wide-open. The 100mm E at optimum is just as sharp as the 35mm f/2.5 E at its optimum, but has more contrast than the 35.
Now, onto some 100% corner crops by aperture:
Left: f/2.8 Right: f/4
Left: f/5.6 Right: f/8
Left: f/11 Right: f/16
f/22
Thankfully, the corners show a similar story. Wide-open, there is detail (with no smearing), but it is mostly hidden by some vignetting and the veiling haze. At f/4 contrast and sharpness improves noticeably. There is a big bump both in sharpness and contrast at f/5.6, an improvement to a “very sharp” degree. By f/8, contrast has again peaked, and corners are a bit sharper. At f/11, there is no real difference in sharpness, but contrast has decreased. From f/16-22 diffraction has set in, further lowering sharpness and contrast, but at f/22, the corners are better than at wide-open.
Despite peaking at a relatively “slow” f/8 aperture (compared to some of my other fast primes, such as the f/5.6-peaking-180mm f/2.8), both sharpness AND contrast across the frame peak at a very high degree. Unfortunately the corners never quite get up to the center sharpness levels, but they are almost as good. Used for its intended purpose (very long portrait lens on APS-C, long telephoto on m4/3), the corners don’t really matter anyway, as they’ll probably be out of focus. All this said, for critical work, stay in the aperture range of f/5.6-11. Do note that the resolving power at f/2.8 is more than useable for general photography.
Sharpness at Infinity
What better target to focus at infinity than the moon on a clear night? In the following 100% crops, the f/8 optimum aperture is maintained out to the infinity focus distance (both the center and corners are essentially the same).
Detail is almost the same, but as in the chart tests, the corners are just behind in detail.
Though I wouldn’t use this lens to shoot the moon–these crops are way too small to be useful–rest assured the lens is still very sharp as the focus distance increases.
Just for a bit of fun, it’s neat to see how much you can push the sharpness in post-processing with the pixel density of a 24MP sensor:
Sharpness at Macro
As noted, the 100mm E isn’t a designated macro lens. That said, when you can only take one lens with you out shooting, close-focus performance is an important characteristic to take into consideration. A good sign here, sharpness and contrast peaks across the frame again at f/8.
As close as you can get
100% crop from the near-center. Extremely sharp, with great contrast. Shooting at f/8, this lens can be used to “cheat” at macro with heavy cropping.
In other words, no matter the focus distance, the 100mm E is a consistent performer. For optimum results, always stop it down to f/8. For a real-world macro shot, scroll down to the end of the “bokeh” section.
Bokeh
“Bokeh” is an artistic term of Japanese origin for the character of anything in the image that is not in focus. Typically, smooth bokeh, where out of focus objects and highlights seem to “melt” into the background, is favorable. In regards to the 100mm E, I would rate bokeh overall as “very good”, especially in the f/2.8-4 range. First, let’s take a look at bokeh smoothness.
To analyze the smoothness of background and foreground bokeh, these objects (shot at f/22 to get maximum depth of field) are laid out as shown. The Altoids box is the focus point, while the small russian dolls are staggered from far behind the box to close in front of it.
Some tighter crops (NOT 100%) by aperture:
f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
f/11 (stopped down further, everything starts getting into relative focus)
For the best-looking foregrounds and backgrounds, f/2.8 is THE aperture to shoot at (not only because of the shallow depth of field) due to the super-smooth backgrounds, as well as pretty smooth close foregrounds (foregrounds close to the depth if field are unfortunately distracting with some doubling). As the aperture is stopped down, the backgrounds are always smooth (the “important” bokeh). With regards to the foregrounds at each subsequent aperture, both close foregrounds and near-depth of field foregrounds are in varying stages of doubling, lending to a distracting appearance. That said, the only real problem is near-DoF foregrounds at f/4 that exhibit a large amount of doubling. The “very good” rating applies here, as with a lens like this used for its intended purpose (long portrait on APS-C or long telephoto on m4/3), there will most likely not be anything in the foregrounds anyway. With most lenses, out of focus areas in the foreground cause an optical illusion to make our eyes try to bring it into focus (and hence should be avoided).
Now let’s look at how the 100mm E handles out-of-focus highlights, by aperture. The following are 100% crops, and the object used was a sparkled decoration to get as many point sources of light as possible:
Left: f/2.8 Right: f/4
Left: f/5.6 Right: f/8
Left: f/11 Right: f/16
f/22
Keeping again in the “very good” range, highlights from f/2.8-5.6 range from exceptionally smooth to smooth, with little to no obvious outlines, and even coloring throughout the highlight. As the aperture is stopped down further, outlines become more and more noticeable, and artifacts inside the highlight begin to get prevalent. At f/22 the highlights look pretty awful. Then again, who takes portraits (or any shot where bokeh matters) at f/22? In the range where it counts, bokeh highlights are great. Even at f/8 (optimum sharpness and contrast throughout the frame), the highlights would only be distracting if you printed REALLY big, think 12×18 or more.
The following uncropped “real-world” shot demonstrates a few things this review has covered, the close-focus ability, the smoothness of the backgrounds, and the handling of (many) bokeh highlights:
100mm, ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/8 (Tripod)
In the background to the left is a brick wall, the lines rendered indiscernable. The edges of the flowers show no haze where they are in focus (there is some wide open at macro) to rob detail. The bokeh highlights, though bright and aperture-shaped, have no artifacts or outlines. In other words, everything is just peachy. 🙂 Also, my flower quota has now been reached for this post.
Purple Fringing
A form of chromatic abberation (a type of distortion where certain colors do not hit the image sensor at the same convergence point), purple fringing is typically seen in fast lenses at their wider apertures when shooting scenes of high contrast, such as branches against sky. Though purple fringing can be cleaned up very well in post processing nowadays (see my detailed post on that here), it is still an important point to take in consideration if one either doesn’t have the time to post process, or has purple objects in the frame that does not want to be desaturated. To assess purple fringing, I used this scene of high contrast:
Here is the absolute worst-case scenario for purple fringing–in these tests each exposure was overexposed by two stops. Crops will be taken from the center.
By aperture:
f/2.8–Bad purple fringing about 3-4 pixels wide on the larger part of the branch, and 15-20 pixels wide on the thinner part
f/4-Negligible purple fringing, about 1 pixel wide where there is any
f/5.6–Purple fringing completely gone
Have to shoot a scene of high contrast? Don’t do it wide open with the 100mm E, plain and simple. However, if f/2.8 is needed for some reason, the purple fringing can mostly be edited out, leaving behind a grey haze (not as noticeable as the fringing, at least):
This correction, still at f/2.8, required a +17 correction (out of 20) in Lightroom 4
Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration
Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (also known as “bokeh fringing”) is another form of aberration that is mainly prevalent on large aperture lenses in areas that are out-of-focus (hence the bokeh designation). A lens that suffers from LoCA has objects in the background tinged with green, while objects in the foreground are tinged with purple. Stopping down a lens only marginally helps in reducing LoCA’s, as all stopping down really does in most instances is bring more objects into focus (anything out of focus will still have the aberration). Usually the purple hue on foreground objects is of a different hue than purple fringing, so foreground LoCA can be very difficult to remove in post-processing. Fortunately, Lightroom 4 also has a dedicated aberration slider for the green hue, so at least foreground LoCA’s can be removed easily. If you take a look again at the “fixed” image for purple fringing in the last point, you can see very easily that the branch in the upper left has purple LoCA left over, while the branches to the left and right have heavy green LoCA. I must point out that purple fringing is technically a form of LoCA, but is often treated and thought of as a separate fault in lenses (hence my adherence with the norm). Anyways, here is a minute’s worth attempt at fixing these other aberrations:
Here all aberrations have been edited out, but at the cost of removing most of the green and purple hues from the image. Were there to be foliage or purple flowers, they would appear heavily desaturated, or worse, with obvious desaturated outlines.
Flare
One of the cost-cutting measures for the Series-E lenses was to only single-coat the lenses. Lenses that are single-coated tend to not have very good flare control due to many internal lens reflections. Nikon eventually started to give multi-coating to some of the later Series-E’s, but many only got the single treatment. My copy of the 100mm E is more than likely single coated. There are many internal reflections when a bright source of light is near the frame, but not as many (nor the angle needed for them to show up) as in the 50mm E. In this short handheld video (yes, it’s shaky) you can see all the reflections that may hinder an image if the sun (or a bright source of light) is in or near the frame. The following was shot in black and white to make seeing the flare easier against the blue sky:
You can see in the video many reflections are prominent, as is contrast-destroying veiling flare. An example of how veiling flare can affect a photograph can be seen in this real-world shot with the 100mm E:
Not only are there obvious blue blobs from internal reflections, this scene, shot at the contrast-optimum f/8, is completely lacking in contrast.
Flare control is the only truly awful area this lens performs in. However, it isn’t as bad as the 50mm E, so take it as you like.
Vignetting
Vignetting is the look of darkened corners as a result of shooting near the wide open aperture (sometimes photographers add vignetting in post processing for effect). Another result of the “sweet-spot” advantage, most full-frame lenses tend to have little to no vignetting problems when used on an APS-C or smaller sensor (m4/3, 1 inch sensors, etc.). The 100mm E is no exception here, vignetting even wide-open is negligible in field use. Part of this is due to the very gradual vignetting characteristic of this lens, where there is no harsh cutoff between where the darkening starts and where it ends.
In this infinity-focused shot of a wall at f/2.8, a +15 correction (out of 100) is needed in LR4. At close focus only a +10 correction is needed, while at all other f-stops no correction in necessary.
Distortion
One of the many advantages to using a prime lens over a zoom, distortion is usually well-corrected (save for wide-angles). Distortion with the 100mm E is negligible pincushion. Though not needed, for those who would like to set up a lens profile, a distortion correction of -1 in the lens corrections module fixes any and all distortion.
Now let’s hit the old recap.
Pros and Cons
Pros
- Solid build quality and functionality (smooth focus and aperture control) despite the plastic construction. A metal mount and filter threads are nice additions.
- Shootability is through the roof, almost as much so as the 50mm E
- Surprisingly useful 150mm equivalent field of view on APS-C with good depth of field control (200mm long telephoto on m4/3)
- Useably sharp wide open, with a contrasty and tack-sharp peak at f/8 all over the frame and at all focus distances. Detail at f/22 is still “okay”. Field curvature not a problem.
- Great background bokeh at all apertures, with out-of-focus highlights rendered great from f/2.8-5.6
- Purple fringing essentially gone at f/4. Other longitudinal chromatic aberrations are easy to remove.
- Negligible vignetting
- Negligible distortion
- As fast as any professional 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, but much lighter, cheaper, and compact. The 100mm probably has more light transmission too due to having fewer elements.
- Holds its own against the Nikon 105mm f/1.8 AI-s, see section below
Cons
- Plastic lenses do not have the same feel as a metal lens
- Sharpness in the corners doesn’t quite get up to the level of the center (almost there, though).
- Focus shift affects all apertures past f/2.8 (applies only to SLR shooters)
- Foreground bokeh at most apertures is busy, and out-of-focus highlights past f/5.6 become distracting
- Purple fringing wide open is bad and difficult to correct completely
- Flare is AWFUL, but not as bad as the 50mm E
- Manual focus, in case you had forgotten
BONUS: Compared to the 105mm f/1.8 AI-s
It has now come to the time of the review where I have to think about which lens I really like the most. Before I do that, let’s get some base spec comparisons out of the way. All stats will be presented with the Nikkor first, Series-E second:
Current Market Price: N-$500-550, E-$80-100
Max. Aperture: N-f/1.8, E-f/2.8
Weight: N-20 ounces, E-7.6 ounces
Dimensions: N-3.1×3.5 inches, E-2.25×2.5 inches
Close Focus: Same, about 1 meter
Build: N-All metal, E-Mostly (high-quality) plastic
The front element is huge next to the 100mm. With both lenses at f/8, take note of the Nikkor’s smoother 9-bladed aperture compared to the rougher 7-bladed aperture.
The difference in depth of field from f/1.8 to f/2.8 goes from objects in the background being blurry at f/2.8…
…to being completely unrecognizable at /1.8:
But the big surprise comes at sharpness at f/2.8, here in these 100% crops (I redid the 105mm tests with the better chart):
105mm at f/2.8
100mm at f/2.8
Sharpness between the two lenses is very much comparable. Contrast is noticeably better with the 105mm, and detail is a tad better as well, but the 100mm still looks great by comparison. However, the 105mm noticeably beats the 100mm at f/4, peaking in both contrast and sharpness by f/5.6. Here are two 100% crops at each respective lens’ optimum aperture:
105mm at f/5.6
100mm at f/8
At each lens’ optimum aperture, detail and contrast is tack-sharp. However, the edge (a small one at that) still goes to the 105mm in both contrast and sharpness. In real world shooting this would mean that a higher shutter speed can be achieved with a lower ISO at optimum aperture with the 105mm than the 100mm, key when adapting lenses with a camera without in-body image stabilization.
Other areas the 105mm performs much better in is flare control, smoother foreground bokeh, and the feel of shooting with a chunk of cold, hard metal.
As far as comparing these two lenses for which one is “better”? It’s a difficult proposition, to say the least. Whereas the 105mm f/1.8 has better mechanical/optical qualities in every regard (ranging from a little to a lot better), and has better depth of field control–the 100mm E holds its own with about ~85% of the performance of the Nikkor at 1/5th the price and about a 1/3rd the weight. Tack that onto the aforementioned higher shootability, and you do the math.
Summary
Taken by itself, the 100mm E is a stunning performer in nearly every respect. The only area the lens never excels in is in flare control, a problem that could possibly be mitigated by the use of a lens hood (though, that would take away much of the compactness of any kit). At about half the price of the comparable Nikkor version (105mm f/2.5 AI-s), and less than 1/5th the price of its suped-up bigger brother (105mm f/1.8 AI-s), the 100mm E is an affordable piece of kit which should belong in every photographers bag for another “go out there and shoot” lens just like the 50mm in the same series. If you want to get into the 150mm field of view for portraiture (see HERE for a great example) for APS-C cameras, or the 200mm long telephoto field of view on m4/3 cameras, head to your favorite online auction house and go for it!
Here are a few samples taken with this lens (for more samples fitting into the “long portrait” classification, see here, here, and here)
Gate to No-where
100mm, ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/2500
Rocky Textures
100mm, ISO 100, f/8, 1/100
Bind
100mm, ISO 100, f/8, 1/250
Whew, you all still with me? That post sure was a dooesy. Hope it was informative and interesting, nonetheless. Comments and criticisms appreciated, and as always, have a great day guys and gals. 😀
Matthew Durr Photography 
Thank you so much for this excellent review. i am retuning to real photography after 20 years of mostly point and shoot photos of my kids growing up and have chosen the NEX 7 as the vehicle. The Canon EOS film camera was my last serious camera – I greatly enjoyed spending time outdoors shooting flowers, bugs, landscapes, sunsets, etc — activities that I really didn’t have time for while raising and educating my boys.
I have been waffling between the Nikon 100mm E and the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 (52B) macro as my NEX’s multipurpose long lens. Any comparative thoughts??
Thank you.
Hey there Randy, glad you liked the review, and I’m happy for your return to “real” photography (if there is such a thing, I’m assuming you’re speaking of the artsy-fartsy kind, haha).
As to your question, I did a bit of research on that lens and from what I can tell, your decision will all depend on what exactly you are wanting. However, from what I’ve read on the Tamron 90mm 52B so far, here’s what I can tell you:
The Nikon 100mm E is cheaper (~$80-100 in good to mint condition) than the Tamron (the three last-sold ones on eBay in “okay” condition went from $80-160, and the only one on there right now is listed at $350). The Nikon is also a bit shorter, a bit skinnier, and 1/2 the weight of the Tamron, an important thing to consider, as I laid out in the review. Since the Nikon is 10mm longer in FL, the depth of field separation difference between the f/2.5 of the Tamron and f/2.8 of the Nikon is negligible (if any).
The Tamron is a macro (duh, hehe), meaning it is for sure corrected to work close-up, but may not keep all of its optical qualities as focus distance increases (obviously that is a rough assumption, since I don’t have that lens). From what you could see in the review, the Nikon is consistent at f/8 throughout the focus range. However, the Tamron being a macro means you can obviously get much closer (1:2 ratio) than the Nikon. Of course, I’ve seen that with the cropability of the NEX-7’s sensor, faking a macro with a sharp lens is doable.
Let’s assume you REALLY want to get into macro (as well as general photography). I believe you would be best suited getting the 100mm E, along with a separate 200mm macro lens. With the 100mm E, you’ll likely take your camera out more due to the absence of the weight and size of everything, and when you really want to do macro, you’ll have a dedicated set-up with a more versatile 300mm equivalent field of view allowing you to photograph insects and other flitting things from a greater distance (won’t scare them off). I for one will at least start out with something like the 105mm Micro-Nikkor (aperture not decided), rather than get a shorter FL.
Think about it though, wouldn’t you rather photograph a bumblebee on a flower from 10 feet away rather than 2 feet away? 😉
There is of course the good old 105mm Micro Nikkor in a f4 and a f2.8 version. Both are excellent macro lenses and good all a rounders too. They do tend to be slightly on the expensive side, unfortunately.
I imagine they would, but man, the f/4 version is already at $225 on eBay, and the f/2.8 is in the $500 range.
You can find them for a bit less than that, you need to search and be very patient.
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-105mm-F2-8-AiS-/380442720920
Nikon Micro Nikkor 105mm F2.8 AiS – EUR 299.00
You’re right eths, it’s what I have done with my other lenses, perhaps my patience in eBay hunting is just wearing a bit thin. 🙂
Btw, do you use either the f/2.8 or f/4 micro lenses yourself?
I have the older f4 version (AIS) and wouldn’t mind having the bellows version:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/Bellow-Nikkor/index.htm
I worked with the bellow version, about 30 years ago, when I was learning photography – I had great fun calculating correction factors based on the magnification level…. 😉
The f2.8 version is a bit tricky when working with extension tubes and or bellows.
That said, I’ve not done much classical macro-work during the last decade or so.
Good point, though with modern sensors metering on what exactly is coming through the lens, using the f/2.8 version should be easy…right? (This is coming from a guy who has never done true macro, so feel free to school me)
A “self portrait” taken with the 105mm/f4
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1965669396/photos/1754100/dsc02368
That’s pretty tight, seems you actually backfocused a bit, but the DoF looks so shallow I don’t blame you. 🙂 And 3200 on the N7? How dare you? 😛
No not so easy. The 2.8 version uses a different focusing and correction strategy. This means that IQ can go wrong very quickly when you go beyond the built in capabilities of the lens.
The f4 is much more forgiving.
I believe Rockwell describes the difference as well as here:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/105mmicrof28.htm
I read that as well, he mentions that when using an extension ring (something I’m not sure I’ll use for a while, anyway), setting focus to close helps a lot. So…dunno. Remember, macro dummy here. There’s an f/2.8 on eBay getting ready to end in 10 minutes: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-105mm-F-2-8-Lens-1455-/180915419313?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a1f6638b1#ht_488wt_64
ISO 3200 – LWDYWMTD – It was handheld and 1/20th of second the way it was… 😉
I’m just kidding around, the noise isn’t bad by any means. Good sharpness for 1/20th too, bet you used the 10fps burst mode. 🙂
Did you get the lens?
Unfortunately no, went out of my price range at about $325 after shipping.
Good job – I really enjoy reading your reviews.
I hope you were not effected to badly by the storms.
Thanks Eths, always good to see you dropping by here as well.
And whew, don’t get me started on those storms. 🙂 Most everything is fine, though.
Thanks to you, I’m now a proud owner of a 100mm E series Nikon in near-perfect condition. It’s aperture was stuck, so I got it for £25 (about $40) from eBay. After a little tinkering it’s in perfect working order.
A nice match for my E-M5 and quite usable with our older D200 too.
Great to hear Visa! I hope that sensor-shift stabilization works wonders with your lens, giving you a nice 200mm f/5.6 (DoF-wise) equiv.
I had a Series E 100mm, and sold it when I “upgraded” to a 70-200 zoom…
Regretting badly, as a small light inconspicous lens with the same (or better) IQ, costing “nothing” would definately be nice to have for candid streetphoto! I will get one again ASAP!
The few times I’ve used it for street photography it really is amazing. In many ways I miss this “street sniper” lens (coined from a friend of mine), and I almost wish I didn’t sell it. Definitely enjoy your copy when you get it. 🙂
Very much enjoyed your comprehensive review, Matt! I kept the lens’s 2nd version (originally acquired used way back in 1986) when recently I transitioned from an old Nikon FE2 film camera to the Olympus OM-D EM-5. Its a joy to work with as a snub-nosed full frame equivalent 200mm. The EM-5’s in-body stabilization makes it easy to use to about 1/15th of a second. Great lens when you need a bit more image scale than the Olympus 45mm 1.8 provides.
Absolutely, John! The 100mm f/2.8 pairs great on a m4/3 body with its small size and long reach. Glad you liked the review! Apologies for not posting anything lately, higher obligations have been taking up all of my time.
Dear Matthew,
thanks alot for your excellent review of the 100mm 2.8 Series E Nikon!
I recieved this lens today from a dealer of classic Nikonlenses and -cameras and ebay made my day providing an unused and boxed original lens hood for 7€. On my D7000 this lens is looking really good and it feels much better than any of the new AF-S plastik Nikkors from China. There is no other 100mm lens out there as lightweighted and small as this little gem.
Glad you liked the review, Stephan, and great to hear you are loving your copy! The only equivalent is canon’s own fd 100mm f/2.8, but, like you say, I think the Nikon is still smaller and lighter!
What’s up, every time i used to check blog posts here in the early hours
in the dawn, since i like to learn more and more.
Thank you for this review. It’s a great source of information – so much so that I’ve just bought the 100mm lens from ebay 🙂
Hey Steve! Hope your lens turns out great like mine was!
I never thought was going to be so detailed and well explained when I saw the Sony camera… my mistake. Great review!
To this day that little NEX-7 is still helping me create some great photographs, though I admit it sure doesn’t look all that opposing. 🙂 Thanks!
Great blog Matthew, i got a this lens for 60€ after reading about it here and im very pleased to say you nailed every aspect!
I began using E series because my father had the 50mm one with his old Nikon FM and just have fallen in love with the focus ring smoothness. I find them far more usable than modern lenses for amateur photography such as mine!
Great to hear Emanuel, and thanks for your words. Nikon really nailed the price/performance aspect of these lenses so well, it’s so great they do great work even to this day (still holding onto my tiny 50mm f/1.8 E!).
Great review, Matthew. I am new to the a6000, and I am lens searching. I have the Zeiss 24mm 1.8 and the 55-210. But I really wanted the 16-70 to be the killer, though at the price it really isn’t. So I am messing with my Nikon lenses on a metabones, and coincidentally today I tried my 100mm for the first time on this camera. You nailed the review, but I actually prefer using the lens at f4 and f5.6 most of the time. As you say, it is plenty sharp at any aperture in the center. Wow, it is really nice on the a6000, and I find focus peaking gets me in focus as quickly as I can manage with my Df. I have a number of other Ai and Ais lenses that I need to try, and I will start by checking out your other reviews. Thanks for this one.
Great to hear, Roy! I actually regret selling that lens out after I got done with the review, as now when I reach for the 100mm focal length, I’m stuck with the big-ole’ heavy 105mm f/1.8 AI-s! Haha.
There is a lot to what you say about weight. I have a like-new 200mm f4 that I really love, but it just isn’t comfortable on this little camera, shooting handheld. I suppose it would be okay on a tripod, but the lens doesn’t have a tripod collar, so that’s out. Your 180mm is the ticket for that, I think. I have thought about getting one, or even an old 300mm f4.5.
Just so you know, the 180mm f/2.8 AI-s is half a pound heavier than the 200mm f/4. And, it still doesn’t have a tripod collar. 😦
Check out my 180mm f/2.8 AI-s review to learn more. Also, a 300mm f/4.5 will also be noticeably heavier.
hi , excellent review!
i wanted to know how my 100mm f 2.8 E serie will work with macro extension tubes on my nikon d5300…and how many mm of extension tubes i really needs for real macro 1:1 ratio?
thanks a lot anyway!
Hey there Thomas, sorry for not getting back with you, I was gone for a few months. The 100mm f/2.8 shows excellent sharpness characteristics that I’m sure could translate well to extension tubes. As to attaining true 1:1 macro, I do not know the actual amount. That said, give multiple combinations a shot and see what works for you! Once you get within a few inches, you are working within 1:1 magnification.
Matthew, I really like your reviews and professional judgements. I would like to have your opinion about three issues: (1) I have been using the Nikkor 24mm 2.8 AIS on a sony alpha 6000. the colours come out kind of flat and the sharpness of the images is way behind my sigma 19mm. i had big hopes but am disappointed now. Do you have any experience with this combination? (2) Have you tested he Nikkor 105 2.5 on the Sony? (3) I am using a Novoflex adapter. What do you think about this? Thank younfor your reply. Best regards Ralf Baron, Düsseldorf, Germany
Hello there Ralf, sorry for the late response. I do not have much experience with that lens, though I do know the older wide AI-s lenses do suffer from relatively flat images without much micro contrast and also exhibit noticeable veiling haze until stopped down. I believe the only exception is the 28mm f/2.8, which still fetches for a large amount of money on eBay, but I have not tested that lens. I have also only tested the big brother to the 105 2.5, the 1.8. It’s a fantastic lens, and from every story I’ve read about the 2.5, it doesn’t disappoint either. The novoflex adapter is also a good one. I haven’t heard many reports of decentering on that one, compared to much cheaper models.
Which adapter did you use to adapt lens on sony a6300?
Best,
MK
Apologies for late response. I used a Fotodiox F to E mount adapter. The current version I use for Nikon lenses is the DLX adapter.
Thanks for doing this write up. I know something like this can take a bit of time to put together.
I agree with what you wrote here. I have both the 100mm (later version) and a 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S. I bought the 100mm as a travel lens for a two-week trip to Vietnam a few months ago as it is half the weight of my f/2.5.
Looking through the film scans now I can’t see too much of a difference between the two lenses, and I much enjoyed the weight savings. (However, my copy of the 105mm has seen a lot of use over the years and is filled with dust.)
I was shooting a Nikon FM3A and almost only Tri-X at box speed. The other two lenses I took was the 28mm f/2 which is a splendid lens and the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4. I found the 28-58-100 to be a good set up that allows me to cover almost all the conditions that I encountered. Sometimes I wanted something a bit longer, but there aren’t really any lightweight 135mm Nikon lenses out there. And after carrying my small kit for up to 18 hours a day, I wasn’t looking for anything heavier.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks Zach! Wish I had more time to do these more frequently, my 400mm f/2.8 has been itching for a review for well over a year now. Glad the 100mm E works well for your film use, it really was a great performer for me even on digital. Only reason I sold it was because the 50mm E made for a better run-about lens for my uses.
I have the same problem with weight and size, though on the wider end of the spectrum. For 90% of my photo outings nowadays, I find myself bringing my 15mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 E, and 105mm f/2 STF, the last of which is the only “big” lens. Anything longer telephoto wise just gets too heavy for long outings.
The 135mm Series E is a decent lens as well, but it too starts to get on the heavy side compared to what lenses you list in your post.
Excellent review…thanks for sharing! I added the Nikon 100 series e lens to my collection and discovered similar results with a comparison to the 105 f1.8….pretty impressed with the much smaller and cheaper 100.
Glad you liked it Andy. The 100mm E really does punch above its weight class, and part of me does regret selling it off. The Laowa 100mm f/2 has been great, and is a much better lens overall, but it is of course much heavier and bulkier to boot.