From roughly the centre to the corner using the 28-105 at 1:2 setting at 105mm and f/11 on aperture ring.
Initial pictures taken of general scenery show the lens to be OK. A few close up shots are provided here to show what happens when the lens is used in macro mode.
The lens can focus close enough to give 1:2 (half life size) when set to 105mm. As is usual with zooms, the focal length changes drastically at macro distances so the working distance from subject to filter ring is a lot less than that of the 105/2.8 macro lens.
Now a comparison between the 28-105 and the 105 macro when photographing a flat subject (a very foreign banknote) at 1:2 setting on both. The 28-105 was set to f/11 indicated on the barrel and the 105 macro was set to f/8 indicated on the barrel.
From roughly the centre to the corner using the 28-105 at 1:2 setting at 105mm and f/11 on aperture ring.
Later.... a few more tests of flat material (not scanned here yet) show that there is a fair amount of barrel distortion at the above setting and also that when the aperture is set down to the minimum (f/32 shows on LCD panel) the edge performance improves somewhat, but still not as good as the true macro lens.
From roughly the centre to the corner using the 105/2.8 macro lens,
at f/8 on aperture ring.
So far it seems to be that I should definitely keep the 105 macro lens, the 28-105 is no substitute. In the field for non-critical shots of bugs and flowers it will be OK. But for any critical photos or copying of flat material like slides or photos then it leaves a lot to be desired.
If you only needed the centre part of the image probably bounded by a 24mm diameter circle, then this lens would be OK.
I did some slide copying with the 28-105 using a bellows unit to get down to 1:1 and the same results occurred. Centre circle OK, but edges furry.
Now for some more "real world" shots.....
28-105 lens at 105mm and 1:2 setting at f/32 on camera LCD panel.
Similar shots taken at f/11 and also with the 105mm macro lens at f/11 all look much the same, it would obviously be different if I had something like a bug with fine body hairs as a subject. Maybe next spring.
28-105 lens reversed at 105mm, infinity focus, f/11 aligned with green
dot.
The lens is fitted in reverse by using the BR-5 and BR-2A combination. An optional BR-3 adapter is fitted to the naked bayonet end so that lens hood or filters can be applied. N8008s camera used in aperture priority mode and SB-26 flash in TTL mode on an extender cable SC-17. The working distance is much greater than when the lens is used the right way around.
28-105 lens reversed at 50mm, infinity focus, f/11 aligned with green
dot.
Now this lens is getting interesting!
Working distance is getting a bit close now, but I still could get flash
in there from the side. It now seems I will have to buy a second flash
to get better illumination under these circumstances.
When using the lens in reverse you have to focus with the lens wide
open, then shut it down to the desired aperture to shoot. View is very
dim under these circumstances so the set-up needs to be on a tripod or
some sort of arrangement to hold everything in correct relationship after
focussing wide open. Flash is essential as ambient light would give very
slow shutter speeds.
With that preamble out of the way I finally got around to using some
slide film to test the 28-105 at a few focal lengths and apertures. The
results are as follows.
| Focal Length | Aperture | Fall-off Result |
| Nikon 28-105 @ 28mm | f/3.5 max | annoying |
| " | f/4 | moderate |
| " | f/5.6 | slight |
| " | f/8 | extremely slight |
| " | f/11 | none |
| Nikon 28-105 @ 70mm | f/4.5 max | very slight |
| " | f/5.6 | extremely slight |
| " | f/8 | none |
| Nikon 28-105 @ 105mm | f/4.5 max | slight |
| " | f/5.6 | very slight |
| " | f/8 | none |
Distortion seems to be minimal. There is some there but does not cause
any problems for normal photography. There are also a lot of arguments
about which is better of the 24-120 and the 28-105 lenses. The 24-120 may
be considered better because it has a bigger zoom range. The 28-105 might
be considered better because it has less distortion and better resolution
at the long end. More recently I managed to borrow a 24-120 and have produced
a 28-105 vs 24-120 comparison page.
The recommended lens hood is the HB-18 and bayonets firmly onto the
front of the lens. The filters screw in independently. The HB-18 is a huge
thing, not so long but very wide in an attempt to provide good shading
at 28mm. I found a better solution was the Hoya Multi Hood, it is a rubber
hood that flips to three positions. Testing on the 28-105 lens the first
position works at 28m, the middle position is for 35mm and the third position
at 70mm and it still provides a good deep hood for 105mm. It is a
screw-in type so may cause wide angle vignetting if you use filters with
it.
I like the lens for general use and in the field for macro shots of
odd flowers and bugs etc. It is an ideal travel lens. OK the maximum aperture
leaves the viewfinder a bit dim at times, but the camera always seems to
auto-focus just fine. When critical work occurs then I will carry a bag
of primes, but probably still carry the 28-105 for convenience.
If I want to get a bit closer I have no hesitation in applying the
BR-5 and BR-2A reversing rings and then using the zoom setting to get the
degree of magnification I want. A very simple and light-to-carry way to
get extreme macro shots. The performance of the lens in reverse appears
to be better than when the right way around for macro range around 1:2.
When I find some suitably fine detailed subjects and improve my flash set-up
I will provide some more examples.