Nikon 105 Micro lens - manual vs. AF

I am just about to buy into a Nikon system (coming from rangefinders)

and I know I want a 105/2.8 Micro (macro, why does Nikon call it

micro?) but I am not 100% sure I need the AF.

 

How does the new AF compare to the old manual focus one? Sharpness?

Tonality? Contrast? Color rendition?

 

Approx. how much should one expect to pay for a minty used one?

 

Cheers,

I only ever owned the MF one, though the AF one is supposed to be a little better optically. The MF is excellent, though and I doubt there's any practical difference.

 

However, the MF one only goes to 1:2 without extension tubes whereas the AF goes to 1:1. The AF lens also has the chip than enables the new AF bodies to compute the effective aperture as you focus closer, which should be useful if you're using manual flash.

 

I have no idea what they sell for.

I use both the 60 and 105 AF Micro Nikkors. The 60 is great for copying maps and artwork, where the 105 shines for floral and insect photography. The AF feature has very little use, however the continuous focussing to 1:1 is a real asset. The AF lenses are later optical designs with the IF mechanism actually changing the true focal lengths of the lenses. (At 1:1 the relative apertures are f/5.0, instead of the f/5.6 that would occur with the earlier Nikkor designs.) I find them both exceptional tools.

 

Alex

A couple suggestions for you.

<p>

First, Nikon is clearly trying to wean us off of MF lenses. Many of the new cameras will not meter in any fashion with them. (There's a guy here on photo.net who can help you work around that however.) Still, it may be a compelling reason to go with the AF version.

<p>

On the other hand, the AF version actually achieves its close focusing partly by shortening the focal length which really reduces working distance. This may or may not be a problem depending on your intended subjects. I shoot a lot of bugs, bees etc and the short working distance is frequently a problem. I eventually got a 200 micro to solve the problem.

<p>

I'm not sure about current prices, but I suggest looking at B&H Photo's Import price as a comparison point. I frequently see stuff on ebay go above NEW Import prices...crazy! Also KEH.com should give you some ideas of used price.

<p>

Here's a couple Nikon links you'll get some good reading from:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.nikonlinks.com/">www.nikonlinks.com</a> is a bunch of links to all things nikon.

<li><a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/">www.naturfotograf.com</a> will answer your questions comparing the two lenses. The author goes into great depth describing many, many nikon lenses, pro and con. Get past the splash screen and find the lens section.

</ul>

<p>Finally, here's the link to get MF lenses upgraded to work with newer camera bodies. Rolland Elliott puts a 'chip' from a modern AF lens into your older MF lens...

<a href="http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm">http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm

Whereas you might not autofocusing, keep in mind that the AF lens focuses to 1:1 without any extensions (albeit, it reduces its focal lenght to do so). The MF lens only goes to 1:2.

 

Furthermore, some tests suggest that the AF is better optically.

 

If it were me, I'd skip the 105mm and go for the 200mm AF macro lens: impeccable optics and greater working distance.

Patrick,

I've had both the 105mm and 200mm AF Micros. I've kept the 200mm without regrets. It's a gem of a performer.

 

Bests, Duncan

Duncan, I like that advice, especially from someone, like myself, who just sold all their Leica rangefinder gear :-)