Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 186342" data-attributes="member: 12496">True, but that is not why it might be dark.This compensation is fully automatic in Nikon macro lenses.&nbsp; Metering works fine as is.&nbsp; It is the reason they cannot do f/2.8 at 1:1, but 1:1 depth of field needs like f/16, you would never consider 2.8 anyway. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; You will still see it a little of it some, like for example a 105mm VR macro used for tabletop.&nbsp; On a DX camera, this is like 160mm telephoto (effective comparison).&nbsp; So you probably have to back off to about 7 feet to get the little table top scene in.&nbsp; And around here is where you may see f/3 or f/3.2, instead of f/2.8.&nbsp; But again, it seems unlikely we would consider such a wide aperture then.&nbsp; The lens does make corrections, it maybe become f/3, but it&nbsp; is still fully and accurately metered. No problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 186342, member: 12496"] True, but that is not why it might be dark. This compensation is fully automatic in Nikon macro lenses. Metering works fine as is. It is the reason they cannot do f/2.8 at 1:1, but 1:1 depth of field needs like f/16, you would never consider 2.8 anyway. :) You will still see it a little of it some, like for example a 105mm VR macro used for tabletop. On a DX camera, this is like 160mm telephoto (effective comparison). So you probably have to back off to about 7 feet to get the little table top scene in. And around here is where you may see f/3 or f/3.2, instead of f/2.8. But again, it seems unlikely we would consider such a wide aperture then. The lens does make corrections, it maybe become f/3, but it is still fully and accurately metered. No problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification