105mm/f2.8 G AFS VR ED Micro Nikkor: looks delicious ...

<I>Today, I run one D2X with the old 105/2.8 and the other D2X with the 2.8 VR, and at the end of the day it was pretty obvious which combination produced the sharpest close-ups. Suffices to say it wasn't the VR lens.</I>

<P>

Bjorn, could you clarify your set up? Are you comparing the old 105mm/f2.8 with a D2X on a tripod vs. the VR version hand held? Or both set ups are hand held?

<P>

If you are comparing tripod vs. VR, nobody should be surprised that using a tripod wins.

<P>

P.S. I still don't like this "your guys" reference. Either you specify names or just don't refer to anybody.

Shun, you're free to edit out all references to "you guys" in this thread. It was intended as a bit of humor, and I wasn't referring to you with the expression. I just think it is strange that people would condemn a lens so passionately before using it or seeing pictures. At least Bjorn condemns it after using it, which is the way it's supposed to go. :-)

 

In any case I'm surprised to see 105/4 and 70-180 getting 5s while the new VR gets a 4-4.5, with all that fancy glass. I guess Bjorn is looking at different aspects of lens performance than Nikon's designers; it's difficult to understand why Nikon would go backwards in lens design.

Ilkka, A while ago, a fellow named Ross Perot used something similar ("You People" or "You Folks")and it worked against him (US presidential race). It has some historic meaning/background and is not entirely a proper use in certain parts of the world. I understand why Shun is uncomfortable with it.

First of all, let's not drag politics into this discussion. I certainly didn't have Ross Perot in mind. My point is that if you credit someone for making a comment, it is best to have a reference, like so and so trashed this lens in this thread, with both names and links.

 

Otherwise, please return to discussing the 105 AF-S VR.

Nikon gives priority to what people want. So if you want VR and IF, then you by default accept potential occurrence of CA. The 105/2.8 MF gives as sharp or sharper results than the 105 VR and has no CA.

 

I did run both 105/2.8 VR and manual-focus hand-held and on tripod. With the 105 VR, with VR on or off. But as I stated some times by now, the idiosyncracy of the 105 VR (focal length shortening) makes it really difficult to use on a tripod for *my* subjects, in this case, small spring flowers. I found myself constantly within the dreaded 1:1 - 1:2 zone. So I got tired of fighting against the design, removed the camera from the tripod, and tried hand-held with the lens more or less in contact with the ground.

I see, you work at relatively high magnification. I use my Micro Nikkors typically between 1:2 and 1:10 on film, and on digital I generally don't even need to go 1:2 often. I've always found fiddling between 1:2 and 1:1 difficult just because of the shallow DOF.

 

Nikon didn't include the 105 mm f/2.8 Ai-S in the list of lenses to be discontinued; this is good. I recall Color Foto testing the AF and Ai-S 105s and they much preferred the Ai-S.

The 105/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor sounds like a great

lens but Id use it mostly for candid portraits on film, Tri-X,

etc. and hand held close-up at quite modest image ratios. There

are times where hand holding is necessary and its usually a

crap shot. The VR would increase the odds somewhat. The smoother

background rendition would be good for people photos.<br>

<br>

Ive never understood why folks want the 105/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor,

least of all why they would use a lens with such harsh background

rendition for portraiture. The free working distance is so poor.

I lost interest in that lens in about two minutes when I first

tried it.<br>

<br>

I find it most ironic that just as Nikon discontinues all but one

film camera they finally make a 105/2.8 lens suitable for

portraiture on film. Now where the hell is the 70/1.4 AF for

portraits on DX?<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

"The 105/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor sounds like a great lens but I?d use it mostly for candid portraits on film, Tri-X, etc. and hand held close-up at quite modest image ratios."

 

If I ever buy that I would do the same, David. Putting it on a digi body does not seem right. I would use it for color E6 as well.

 

It is a shame that G lenses can not be used on an F2..

People buy AF lenses because older lenses don't meter on many bodies. Quite simple really, we don't want to buy lenses on which support will be lost in the future.