Autofocus performance of the AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED

<p>I'm interested in macro photography and I recently rented Nikon's 105mm f/2.8 AF-S macro lens to play around and see what I thought. The lens was quite fun to use, but I found that the autofocusing performance was poorer than I expected at close range. I'm not talking about all the way down to 1:1 (I wouldn't expect it to handle that well), but for any shots that started into macro range, my camera (a D200) seemed to really struggle to get focus at all...it would usually go all the way to the near point and back to infinity (or perhaps the reverse, it was hard to tell due to the narrow depth of field), with the proper focus flashing into view for a split second as the lens continued on. I found that if I manually got close, it could often handle the fine-tuning of focus, but it wouldn't acquire it on its own, no matter how many tries I let it have.</p>

<p>I was using the center focal point on the D200, which is a cross-type sensor, and I was aiming it at a high-contrast area (usually an edge of something); additionally, I wasn't so close that the maximum aperture had gotten really small (it was often around f/3 or f/3.5). Lighting was a bit dim, since these were usually indoor shots, but I still would've though it would do better. It did just fine when I used it on targets further away, the same as other (non-macro) lenses I've used. I did have the focus limit switch set to full, since I was closer than 0.5m when it was struggling.</p>

<p>So I'm curious: is this the D200's fault? Is it just to be expected when doing macro photography? Or is it something about the 105 in particular? I understand that for really close macro work people usually just use manual focus, but it would be nice to get reliable focusing in the intermediate range! Or maybe I just need to get a good focusing screen so that I can get good, precise manual focus...</p>

<p>it gets tricky past 1:2, doesn't it? AF speed on macro lenses isnt the best measure of macro lenses' performance. don't expect much is what i'm saying. if it struggles and needs manual adjustment, then focus manually. if your 105 VR lens has slow AF at 10 feet doing a portrait shot, then you have problems.</p>

 

<p>I would agree with Eric, I've had the 105 for a couple of years, and now use it with my D90. Anything closer than about 1.5m I tend to MF, not because of the slow / unpredictable AF but purely out of control.</p>

<p>macro photography + AF = bad news in my experience. That's why when I bought a micro lens, I just bought the old 55mm MF f3.5.</p>

<p>That said, the 60mm didn't do so bad on the D1 and Kodak DSLR/n I used to use them on, but still couldn't trust AF for real close-up photography.</p>

<p>I always found my 105mm VR to be very touchy with focus on the D200. It would tend to go through the focus point without stopping, and would hunt alot. I found the D300 to improve things greatly, and the D700 perhaps even a touch better still.</p>

<p>The manual for the lens even tells you about the problems and issues with using AF and VR at close distances. It is not the fault of your camera. Download the manual for the 105 mm f 2.8 AFS VR and read it.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses! It sounds like this is a combination of the body and the lens, but as I get into macro mode no body will reliably autofocus. If I do really get into macro, it sounds like a good focusing screen to allow for accurate manual focus is a must.</p>

<p>I have used this lens extensively with D300, D700, and D7000 cameras. I take a lot of butterfly photos, regularly around 1:2. I use autofocus almost exclusively, and not only has this rarely been a problem, but I think this particular lens is better at autofocus than other comparable macro lenses with which I have experimented (the 60G seems even better though). Maybe the D200 is not so capable as the newer cameras, or perhaps you had a subject unusually low in contrast.</p>

If you do a lot of macro get a body that has live view