- The Contenders - Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 with PK-13
Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 with 1:1 macro extender
Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 MC 1:1
Kiron 105mm f/2.8 1:1
Lester A. Dine 105mm (Kiron) f/2.8 1:1
Vivitar Series 1 105mm (Kiron) f/2.5 1:1
Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 with PN-11
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro
Purpose
I really just wanted to see a good side-by-side of each of these lenses at 1:1 reproduction ratio. Now I realize flat field reproduction is just one aspect of performance in regards to macro lenses. In choosing a lens, the photographer must consider many things including the fact that in just about every instance outside of copy work, the subject is not a 2-D object. In my first comparison I did on this site, (which was something of a disaster) I attempted to look at sharpness as well as bokeh in the same shot. Not only that, I chose to do it outdoors, with a real subject (a plant) with changing conditions (wind, etc). All because I was tired of looking at relatively unrealistic, uninteresting subject matter in comparisons. Look how far I have come. But seriously, a flat 2-D object does provide me with some information about the performance of the lens over the range of apertures as well as a standard gauge between lenses. This test doesn't really decide the lens I will use most often, so much as it gives me more overall insight about each lens. In fact, of all of them, I shoot with the Tokina the most despite relatively strong CA because of its size, ease of use, and autofocus (which can definitely come in handy at times). The second most used lens would be the Series 1 90mm. Tack sharp wide open. I love this lens!
Procedure
To be as fair as objective as I could, I blindfolded myse....Just kidding. All lenses were shot at 1:1 with necessary extenders and extension tubes if needed. I was sure to check focus every shot. If something appeared out of focus after checking the shot on the screen (zooming in), I took another shot. I used mirror-up to minimize camera vibration, as well as a remote shutter release. Using live view, I focused each image and carefully switched over to M-up. The biggest challenge here, was keeping the plane of focus parallel with the sensor plane. At the micro level, the slightest change in angle can throw off results. Needless to say, with my relatively limited gear, don't believe this test is without errors. Even the dollar bill, though relatively new wanted to curl in the heat of the lamps (It was taped down on all sides and I was sure to keep it flat after each lens). I also used a macro focusing rail to avoid remounting the camera with each new lens, and consequently slightly different minimum focusing distance. Despite this, with some lenses, such as the 55mm, the distance was far greater than the macro rail could account for and the setup had to be completely moved.
- Test Key -
To do this test, I chose to photograph a dollar bill because it is recognizable, reproducible, and convenient to continue with, should I choose (and I am sure I will) in the future, to test a newer lens to compare results. Also, I haven't gotten around to ordering or making a lens test chart just yet! All images taken at ISO 200 on the Nikon D700.
Results
Test Results at the Center
Order of results is as follows (in retrospect, my image labels are tough to read, sorry!):
Nikon 55 | Viv S1 90 | Viv 90 | Kiron 105 | Dine (Kiron) 105 | Viv S1 105 | Nikon 105 | Tokina 100
f/2.5
f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6 
f/8
f/11
f/16
f/22
f/32
Test Results at the Lower Right Corner
f/2.5
f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
f/11
f/16
f/22
f/32
Order of results is as follows (in retrospect, my image labels are tough to read, sorry!):
Nikon 55 | Viv S1 90 | Viv 90 | Kiron 105 | Dine (Kiron) 105 | Viv S1 105 | Nikon 105 | Tokina 100
f/2.5
f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
f/11
f/16
f/22
f/32
Analysis
What to make of it all? After getting all the results in and putting them all together, I find more than ever I want to do it again. With new samples of the lenses too. This was a lot of fun for sure! Also I am curious if the Tokina 100mm is truly as soft at f/2.8 as my results in this test. Also, the Nikon 105mm, I could swear it is a little sharper wide open than this. So perhaps with such shallow depths of field, my focus was slightly amiss, causing this tad miscalculation. Otherwise, all the lenses look pretty good save for the Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 MC which doesn't do so well in the early apertures. In fact, it looks aweful. I have noticed this lens tends to have a mind of its own early on. Around f/8 however, it gets back in the game. As in my other tests, the Vivitar Series 1 105mm tends to be softer (and often has a bit more CA) than it's Kiron siblings. So even though I love it's build and physical design, I now often reach for the Kiron or Dine. Not surprisingly by f/22 and f/32 these lenses are useless. Even f/16 is pretty poor.
**A user, Robin, commented below on the above statement. I made it more in hyperbole. Of course you can use these lenses at high apertures and get good images. Sometime you really do want the most DoF you can get. I was just speaking in terms of sharpness. If you want the sharpest image you can get (for what is in focus), these higher apertures will be affected by diffraction will not yield as sharp of results as the middle apertures of the lens.
Well I don't really care to go into any kind of ranking system here since as I said previously, sharpness and the kinds of things this test demonstrates about a macro lens is only a part of so many other variables in what makes a macro lens, a great lens. I personally am big into bokeh. I would love to do a little bokeh comparison. I also, on a less windy day, would love to do a comparison with a 3-D subject. I will let you make your own decisions based on these findings. I will also tell you the Vivitar Series 1 90mm (Tokina 90mm AT-X) is my favorite lens to use, and it should be yours too! The Kiron/Dines are not far behind. In terms of practicality, a newer, 1:1 capable AF macro, such as my Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X will do just about everything I need with quickness and ease.
Wrap-Up
I suppose I sensed these results. I actually had not even looked at these findings prior to deciding on selling a few lenses. Decidedly, I didn't use the Vivitar 90mm (not the Series 1 version) enough to justify keeping it. I think it was just inconvenient for me and I was never incredibly impressed with the output, especially considering all my other options. Sold. Didn't ever use the Nikon 105mm despite people like Bjorn Rorslett boasting it to be one of the best macros ever designed. Sold. And who really needs this many macro lenses? Don't ask me that question!
What to make of it all? After getting all the results in and putting them all together, I find more than ever I want to do it again. With new samples of the lenses too. This was a lot of fun for sure! Also I am curious if the Tokina 100mm is truly as soft at f/2.8 as my results in this test. Also, the Nikon 105mm, I could swear it is a little sharper wide open than this. So perhaps with such shallow depths of field, my focus was slightly amiss, causing this tad miscalculation. Otherwise, all the lenses look pretty good save for the Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 MC which doesn't do so well in the early apertures. In fact, it looks aweful. I have noticed this lens tends to have a mind of its own early on. Around f/8 however, it gets back in the game. As in my other tests, the Vivitar Series 1 105mm tends to be softer (and often has a bit more CA) than it's Kiron siblings. So even though I love it's build and physical design, I now often reach for the Kiron or Dine. Not surprisingly by f/22 and f/32 these lenses are useless. Even f/16 is pretty poor.
**A user, Robin, commented below on the above statement. I made it more in hyperbole. Of course you can use these lenses at high apertures and get good images. Sometime you really do want the most DoF you can get. I was just speaking in terms of sharpness. If you want the sharpest image you can get (for what is in focus), these higher apertures will be affected by diffraction will not yield as sharp of results as the middle apertures of the lens.
Well I don't really care to go into any kind of ranking system here since as I said previously, sharpness and the kinds of things this test demonstrates about a macro lens is only a part of so many other variables in what makes a macro lens, a great lens. I personally am big into bokeh. I would love to do a little bokeh comparison. I also, on a less windy day, would love to do a comparison with a 3-D subject. I will let you make your own decisions based on these findings. I will also tell you the Vivitar Series 1 90mm (Tokina 90mm AT-X) is my favorite lens to use, and it should be yours too! The Kiron/Dines are not far behind. In terms of practicality, a newer, 1:1 capable AF macro, such as my Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X will do just about everything I need with quickness and ease.
Wrap-Up
I suppose I sensed these results. I actually had not even looked at these findings prior to deciding on selling a few lenses. Decidedly, I didn't use the Vivitar 90mm (not the Series 1 version) enough to justify keeping it. I think it was just inconvenient for me and I was never incredibly impressed with the output, especially considering all my other options. Sold. Didn't ever use the Nikon 105mm despite people like Bjorn Rorslett boasting it to be one of the best macros ever designed. Sold. And who really needs this many macro lenses? Don't ask me that question!
