105mm 2.8 VR

<p>I am looking to buy a nice macro lens, I have read extensively on this lens and it sounds good. Does anyone have this lens? What do you think of it? I heard that the focus breathes, and can be annoying, is it still well worth $800? </p>

<p>I do not know what camera body you are wanting to use this lens with, but I use a 105 AI-S with my D200 and it works wondefully. I did not want to spend for the auto focus after I read a lot of complaints about auto focusing since I intended to use it for macro only. Seems most folks turn off auto focus to do the macro work.</p>

<p>I forgot to mention the body, I'm using a D300. </p>

You don't need VR for many kinds ofmacro work, for many others it comes handy, but where VR shines is, when you want to use this lens on the streets.

 

I don't have it. I have a Sigma 70/2.8 Macro and a Sigma 150/2.8 Macro. Both are nice lenses, but while I use the 70 a lot on the streets (and still wish it had VR), the 150 gets not much use besides for the odd macro shot. It's useless in anything but good light.

 

Anyway. I don't know what you want to photograph, but a macro flash unit may be necessary to get the required DOF and stop motion at the same time. I'm definitely no macro expert though.

<p>The Nikon 105mm AF-S VR micro (say macro) lens is superb! I have used mine with a D40, D40X, D80, and the D300.</p>

<p>This lens is good at other things too, but for macro work it is nothing but wonderful.</p>

<p>I still don't get it why on a photo website you can't upload normal sized picture files - say 5 or 10 mb.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is it still well worth $800?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>maybe, if you can still find it for that price. i'd say it depends on whether VR on a fixed-focal lens is worth $500 to you or not. in terms of IQ, you can spend half as much and get the same or better performance from a sigma 70 or tamron 90.</p>

<p>The 105 VR is a very sharp lens IMO; and it also has excellent bokeh. The VR works well, and it's really helpful since the lens probably won't only get used for formal macro shots. The lens is also very well built: it has a metal body/mount and a rear rubber gasket. I don't think it really breathes; its rear element seems to be stationary. </p>

<p>Whether it's still worth $800 is really up to you. (I was lucky enough to get it when it was priced at $615)</p>

<p>I love this lens, absolutely love it. It is everything I could have wanted in a macro. Fanatastic everything. I went from Kenko extension tubes to this lens in December and wow, what a difference. I highly recommend it and it's worth every penny, imo. It's fast as heck and sharp as a tack. </p>

<p>cool thanks guys! I mainly want to use it for extreme close up stuff, like flowers, plants, etc, but probably will use it for everything too.</p>

<p>In my opinion, it might be a great lens, (for non macro purposes) but I would never buy it for half that price or even a quarter of that price for macro work. Why? the lens will not accept extension tubes and VR is of no value for macro work. In my opinion macro lenses need to accept extension tubes and teleconverters. The earlier verion of this lens does. If you want a macro lens in the 100mm range then buy that one, the Nikon 105mm f 2.8 AF macro lens or the manual focus version. You will find that others will disagree with my comments. They like the VR version for macro in that they do not use a tripod. There is no simple answer.<br>

Further complicating matters is what focal lenght macro lens do you really need? I much prefer the 200mm focal length over the 105mm length. You have greater working distance from your subjects and easier control over backgrounds. This can be important when working with live subjects like insects. With flowers, it might not be that important. <br>

Joe Smith </p>

<p>The 105 VR a good general purpose short tele. I bought it mainly for the AF-S, but occasionally the VR comes in handy when taking pictures indoors and for some reason can not use a tripod. It produces images with beautiful colours and smooth bokeh. If you shoot close-ups of insects, I think this lens is worth considering as the fast autofocus and vibration reduction may be helpful. Cluttered backgrounds will disappear which is also great. However, for serious close-up photography of relatively still subjects (i.e. flowers, rocks, ice, technical objects etc.) on a tripod I think this lens doesn't quite deliver the kind of sharpness expected. A Zeiss 100mm f/2 or e.g. the 85mm PC(-E) would be better choices for such subjects in this focal length range IMO. I use all three, but the 105 VR gets most of its time on people subjects, not macro. </p>

<p>Jacob - Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in. I had the predecessor to the 105 VR and replaced it recently with the new Nikkor 60mm AF-SG 2.8. Although the 105 was great lens, I was intrigued by the 60mm's close focusing distance. As an added benefit, this lens is reversable where my 105 was not. I am also very impressed with the contrast of this lens. Just something to think about.</p>

<p>Hey thanks for all the input- I'll look into the 60mm 2.8, I just can't buy anything like a $2000 lens, I can afford more around the $1000 area. I just want a macro lens that will get close, focus close, and deliver quality images that I can sell.</p>

<p>The 60mm AF-S is excellent. I use FX and use the 60 for studio close-ups - the working distance on FX is too short for outdoor use IMO, but indoors with controlled light it works for me. I also use it as a walkaround lens in city shooting and it's great for that also. Since you use the D300 which is a DX body you should probably find the 60mm to work well enough outdoors also though at 1:1 you may find the hood has to be taken off and the lens obstructs some of the natural light that you might get on the subject if you had been using the 105. Another thing is that the background is easier to control with the longer macros. I think the optical quality of the 60mm is, particularly at 1:1, and also generally wide open, superior to that of the 105 VR. Stopped down to small apertures it's hard to call. This is characteristic of Micro-Nikkors in general; the short ones have been generally slightly better than the medium length ones but practicality considerations often lead people to use the 105's outdoors with FX/35mm. In all honesty, all Micro-Nikkors are good lenses. </p>

<p>On DX you should find the 60 quite practical. But it's always a good idea to play around with a lens before buying if you don't have prior experience with these types of lenses. To see especially what you think of the working distance at the subject sizes you'll be working with.</p>

<p>"I would never buy it for half that price or even a quarter of that price for macro work. Why? the lens will not accept extension tubes and VR is of no value for macro work. In my opinion macro lenses need to accept extension tubes and teleconverters. "<br>

I use extension tubes all the time with my 105mm.</p>

<p>AFAIK Nikon currently only makes two Micro-Nikkors that accept Nikon extension tubes: the 200mm f/4D AF Micro-Nikkor and the 105mm f/2.8 Ai-S Micro-Nikkor. However, there are Kenko tubes available that work with AF-S Micro Nikkors. Not sure if they work with PC-E Micros. I'll find out soon ... ;-)</p>

<p>I use Kenko tubes.</p>

<p>ok, maybe im stupid here, but what are extension tubes, what do they do, how much fstop do you lose, etc?</p>

<p>Extension tubes are just that ... tubes that go between the lens and the camera, with no optics inside the tube. The idea is to modify the range of distances that you can focus to, so you can get higher magnifications. You lose light according to the bellows factor.</p>

<p>I'm going to purchase the Kenko set of tubes next week at B&H. I am tired of waiting for Nikon to update their extension tubes to work with their current G and PC-E lenses; I just don't get why they can't produce a complete system that works together. I realize that DX cameras and lenses that focus closer than their predecessors alleviate this need but sometimes you still need it, period (and I don't use DX).</p>

<p>I have the 105 VR. I use it on a D300 for handheld insect shots. I think it is fantastic, and chose Nikon over other systems for this reason. I find VR and autofocus indispensable for these macro uses.</p>

<p>Ilkka, you will love the tubes, they will allow you to get <em>that</em> much closer :)</p>

<p>Ilkka, like you I am frustrated at Nikon for its lack of electronic extension tubes. While I have the complete Nikon set, which I still use, I have an electronic set that I like that bear the Promaster name. You get three tubes: 36mm, 20mm and 12m. The risk of vignetting is smaller with DX lenses or with FX lenses on crop sensors. I use the 36mm tube the most. While they are not as robust as the metal ones, they do serve their purpose. <br>

Check out the mm sizes of the Kenko vs the Promaster. I think there are some differences. That might be a factor too.<br>

I still find it very risky to use more than one electronic tube at a time. There is a risk of separation in the field where the two tubes are joined. My older Kenko set did this on more than one occasion. <br>

Joe Smith<br>

</p>

<p>The 105VR is a sweet lens. One of my very favorite lenses. Very much worth the money IMHO. I also have the Sigma 150 EX macro lens and it is also a great lens. I find myself wishing I had a 200mm macro lens more and more. There are more alternatives available as well. I may just pick up a set of Kenko tubes to try with both macro lenses to see some greater magnification. Anyway, the answer to the OP's question is yes the lens is worth the money for a very useable focal length which works great on both DX and FX. Are there other macro lenses which are as good or better? Yes. This is what makes lens selection so difficult. As well, there is a considerable cash outlay involved in a purchase, so it is wise to try a lens if possible before the purchase decision is made. I have always loved my 105VR and will never sell it.</p>

<p>You can pick a macro lens from any maker and they are all great simply because they aren't as demanding as other focal lengths when it comes to designing them. But the Nikon really shines with its VR capability!</p>

<p>This is a great review of the lens, check it out<br>

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2008/02/nikkor-105mm-f28g-afs-vr.html</p>

<p>PK</p>