About the Nikon Z 105 MC f/2.8

 

I think I have written in this blog that you do not need a macro lens if you do not do really big macros. Instead, a long lens with a sufficient magnification will do for most subjects. You will find pictures here that prove this point. Maybe, I also said that lenses matter far less than we think. 

Sometimes, I think I was wrong. And this is one of those times. To my excuse, I have also praised the 105 MC as a general lens, and give it due credit. But is it really the lens that made the pictures.

The discussion is part of the old fight of primes against zooms. Do you see the difference? Is there any? It does depend on your photographic style. But there are definitely types of photography which benefit from as good a lens as you can get.

You might say that a portrait lens does not have to be sharp. People don't want to see their imperfections sharpened up. I tend to disagree. It is not about the overall sharpness. It is the sharp areas, like the eyes of a subject, that make a picture stand out. The same applies to micro or macro shots. You are immediately drawn to the sharp areas. Look at the images on this page.

Now, the image above was taken with a zoom lens. So, is it the macro lens that makes an image? Or is it rather good light, technique and a nice subject?

I still cannot answer this question in an affirmative way. But today, I went out to photograph sunflowers, with the 105 MC and the 70-180 f/2.8. And at this session, the macro lens won, even though I was not taking macros. It produced more interesting and crispy images.

The reason is not clear. In theory, setting the 70-180 to 105mm and taking the same aperture should simply produce the same results. It didn't work like that for me. The 105 was always a tad more punchy, and you could get closer. The 70-180 unfortunately has the highest magnification at 70mm.

Anyway, thank you for reading. And maybe add your thoughts in the comments.