Bokina vs 100mm L

[Matt W.]

I have two lens kits, one of modern zooms (UWA Tokina, 18-35mm Sigma, 70-200mm Canon), one of old 1960s Nikkors, but for macro I just use macro tubes looks terrible.

I want a macro lens I can use for either kit. For the Nikkors I often use the tubes and the softness looks cool.

The Bokina is about $300 I suppose with 1:1 adapter? And the 100mm L is a lot more. But I also have a 5D and want to use the lens on that... assuming IS and auto focus are crucial for macro? Or not so much?

Optically how do they compare? I think the Bokina has killer rendering, but the 100mm L is much nicer than my 70-200mm II IS wide open.

 

[Alan Peterson]

That choice really comes down to a matter of taste and which set of your lenses you'd like your macro to match. The Canon is superb technically and will intercut with your zooms very well. The Bokina will intercut better with the Nikons. In my experiences with the Bokina (Tokina version), sharpness is incredibly good except at the corners wide open. There's noticeable CA wide open, but it's completely gone by f/5.6. It has a LOT of veiling flare, which can be a plus or a minus depending on what kind of images you're trying to make. Color and contrast are a noticeably flatter than lenses with modern coatings, but shooting RAW gives you enough bit depth to grade saturation and contrast back in if you want it. Of course, the Bokina has just about the creamiest bokeh out there.

A couple examples taken with the Bokina during my wanderings around the forest floor

 

[Matt W.]

It does have a "look." All my nikkors look a little different but I like it. Each focal length has a character and these characters have more depth than just that lol.

How is the 55mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor? It's $250 for a Bokina, $800 (refurb) for the L, $400 (used) for the 100mm f2.8 USM, $300 (used) for the 60m f2.8 USM (and my favorite macro is the 65mm f1.3 super speed, oh god is it nice)....

I feel foolish paying $2500 for the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS and preferring the old Nikons! Maybe the Bokina is for me (and macro tubes for the 70-200mm?).

Is the 1:1 adapter necessary? I would buy an OM mount Bokina for my EF mount and it seems like the 1:1 adapter would be awkward (plus an added $50).

Nice images.

 

[Alan Peterson]

I totally agree about the old Nikkors - there were hits and misses in their lineup, but so many of them have their own special magic. I haven't used the 55mm Mikro Nikkor. The only macro of theirs I've used is the 200mm f/4 AI, which I liked (The sharpness and rendering wasn't quite up to par with the Bokina, but the extra reach is nice for wildlife). I ended up sending it back to B&H because there was a bit of fungus in the barrel, but here's a shot I took with it before then:


I wouldn't bother with getting the 1:1 adapter for the Bokina if there's a cost/availability issue. I've only ended up using it a couple times for extreme closeups on mushrooms and insects. If you're not shooting something that's tiny and completely stationary, it's pretty useless.

 

[Matt W.]

Thanks for the feedback. So would you pay $250 for the Bokina without the macro adapter then? A used 100mm f2.8 USM is only $150 more and then I get AF on my 5D. But I do prefer the look of the older lenses for video and I suppose I could just get a macro tube for the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS.


How difficult do you find it to focus with an MF macro lens for stills? I suppose usually you’re working with a tripod anyway.


Which Nikkors do you like? The sharper the camera the more I like the bad ones.


The 24mm f2 has nisen bokeh and horrible spherical aberration wide open, but I am a fan. The 85mm f1.8 has great character and spiral bokeh. The 135m f2 is really nice. Just got a 180mm f2.8 (pre-ED) and looking into the 18mm f3.5 and 20mm f3.5.

 

[D Fuller]

Thanks for the feedback. So would you pay $250 for the Bokina without the macro adapter then? A used 100mm f2.8 USM is only $150 more and then I get AF on my 5D. But I do prefer the look of the older lenses for video and I suppose I could just get a macro tube for the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS.


How difficult do you find it to focus with an MF macro lens for stills? I suppose usually you’re working with a tripod anyway.


Which Nikkors do you like? The sharper the camera the more I like the bad ones.


The 24mm f2 has nisen bokeh and horrible spherical aberration wide open, but I am a fan. The 85mm f1.8 has great character and spiral bokeh. The 135m f2 is really nice. Just got a 180mm f2.8 (pre-ED) and looking into the 18mm f3.5 and 20mm f3.5.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the Bokina, either in Vivitar brand or Tokina without the 1-1 adapter--unless you really need the 1-1 range, (or unless they come in a package at an attractive price). Without the adapter, the lens gets to 2-1 at the film plane. A note: most of Nikon's micro-Nikkor line gets to 1-1 without extensions.

AF is seriously useless for macro work, IMHO. But IF is genuinely useful.

I'm also a fan of the 50mm f:1.2 AIS. Beautiful lens for small money.

Favorite nikkors? Hands down, the 85mm f:1.4 AIS is my favorite. The 135mm f:2.0 is special. And it really looks like none of its brethren. The 105mm f:2.5 is beautiful - the Gauss design one. Of the 180mm f:2.8, I prefer the ED glass version, but near that focal length, the 200mm f:2.0 rivals the 85 1.4 for me.

On the wide end, I think the 20mm f2.8 AIS is better than any of the other 18 or 20mm Nikkors, and also better than the 20mm AF-D. And I love the 35mm f:1.4 AIS.

 

[Matt W.]

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the Bokina, either in Vivitar brand or Tokina without the 1-1 adapter--unless you really need the 1-1 range, (or unless they come in a package at an attractive price). Without the adapter, the lens gets to 2-1 at the film plane. A note: most of Nikon's micro-Nikkor line gets to 1-1 without extensions.

AF is seriously useless for macro work, IMHO. But IF is genuinely useful.

I'm also a fan of the 50mm f:1.2 AIS. Beautiful lens for small money.

Favorite nikkors? Hands down, the 85mm f:1.4 AIS is my favorite. The 135mm f:2.0 is special. And it really looks like none of its brethren. The 105mm f:2.5 is beautiful - the Gauss design one. Of the 180mm f:2.8, I prefer the ED glass version, but near that focal length, the 200mm f:2.0 rivals the 85 1.4 for me.

On the wide end, I think the 20mm f2.8 AIS is better than any of the other 18 or 20mm Nikkors, and also better than the 20mm AF-D. And I love the 35mm f:1.4 AIS.

Always loved the 105mm f2.5 but don't own one. The 35mm f1.4 is horrible wide open, but has a beautiful look all the same. Benefits from being a very pretty focal length on Super35. Never used the 85mm f1.4, but the f1.8 I love since it's pre-AI and the worst thing optically with this great spiral bokeh.

Is $250 a decent price for a Tokina without the adapter (Olympus mount)? There's a Nikon Vivitar one on KEH for $150 but it's in UG condition.

It's tack sharp by f5.6, right? I'd want to use it with the Nikkors but also for nicer looking stuff, too.

ALWAYS wanted a 200mm f2.0.... sooooo much. Aren't they expensive, though?

Why do you prefer the 20mm f2.8 to the 20mm f3.5? I have a thing for making bad lenses look worse, which is why I'll put a 0.7X wide angle adapter on the old Nikkors to turn the 28mm f2.0 into a 20mm f2.0 or the 24mm f2.0 into a an 17.5mm f2.0, and the adapter I have is 58mm threads (and surprisingly good). But I could do a step down ring for the 20mm f2.8 instead of a step up ring from the 20mm f3.5 and of course I'd rather use no adapter at all and have a fast borderline UWA in the 20mm f2.8.

But is it a substantial difference?

 

[D Fuller]

Always loved the 105mm f2.5 but don't own one. The 35mm f1.4 is horrible wide open, but has a beautiful look all the same. Benefits from being a very pretty focal length on Super35. Never used the 85mm f1.4, but the f1.8 I love since it's pre-AI and the worst thing optically with this great spiral bokeh.

Yeah, the 35 is soft and has tons of veiling flair wide open (but then, so are superspeeds) but stopped down even to 2.0 it starts to get quite sharp, and its focus fall-off is lovely.

Is $250 a decent price for a Tokina without the adapter (Olympus mount)? There's a Nikon Vivitar one on KEH for $150 but it's in UG condition.

I paid $195 (plus shipping) for one in Nikon mount in beautiful condition. You might have to be patient. Or maybe they are getting more popular. They are Pre-AI, so they are inconvenient to use on a Nikon camera (full manual--no metering) so they've been pretty unpopular. But with digital cinema and mirrorless cameras, that's not such an issue.

It's tack sharp by f5.6, right? I'd want to use it with the Nikkors but also for nicer looking stuff, too.

Yes, but still with more character than a "modern" lens.

ALWAYS wanted a 200mm f2.0.... sooooo much. Aren't they expensive, though?

Yes. but MF versions are less than they used to be. Finding one in good condition is the trick.

Why do you prefer the 20mm f2.8 to the 20mm f3.5? I have a thing for making bad lenses look worse, which is why I'll put a 0.7X wide angle adapter on the old Nikkors to turn the 28mm f2.0 into a 20mm f2.0 or the 24mm f2.0 into a an 17.5mm f2.0, and the adapter I have is 58mm threads (and surprisingly good). But I could do a step down ring for the 20mm f2.8 instead of a step up ring from the 20mm f3.5 and of course I'd rather use no adapter at all and have a fast borderline UWA in the 20mm f2.8.

the 20 f:2.8 is sharp, has very little distortion, very little CA, very even field illumination (a bit of vignetting wide open on a D800, but none on an Epic) and it's a full stop faster than the 3.5. It does flare a little more, though. To me, this lens always looks "clean".

I have to say, though my preference is for "good" older lenses rather than "bad" ones, so my preferences might not be yours.

But is it a substantial difference?

The 3.5 is a good lens. But slow, which is often a limitation for interior work.

 

[Matt W.]

Well, the 35mm f1.4 is a “bad” lens (veiling like crazy), so maybe our opinions are not so different, just our descriptions. Likewise the 135mm f2 has a lot of bokeh fringing, but it makes it so smooth. It has so much of a softer rendering than the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS (mine also has scratches on the rear element: I guess I should take a permanent marker to them as they do flare a bit). The 24mm f2 is genuinely bad. A lot of the silly anamorphic stuff and pseudo-anamorphic stuff looks way too bad, but the vintage anamorphic I prefer to the Hawks, not a fan of rainbow flare. It's a matter of embracing, rather than either exaggerating or hiding, character.


The super speeds are my favorite. Well, the Cookes I haven't used but they are my other favorite. Love the 18mm and 65mm super speed macro the best and then 35mm since it’s the best focal length in the kit.


I’ll look into the 20mm f2.8. I know putting a wide angle adapter on a lens rather than using a wide angle is heresy, but the thing is if you try to intercut with an 11-16mm Tokina or something then suddenly the look is changed and the wide is sharper with less character (though that lens is awesome in its own right but very modern), whereas if you cut to a similar looking lens (with one more element to flare and a little more barrel distortion and softer corners) it keeps the same look. I like it.

I would get a 200mm f2 if I had that kind of money.

How do you find the 20mm f3.5 UD? It's quite affordable.