105 f/2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor: How good is it?

shuo_zhao · December 19, 2008

Hi everyone, if you have had some experience with this lens or own one, please share your experience about its optical quality and performance. I've read through quite a few threads on PN from the past about it, but I wasn't able to determine how good this lens is (especially after reading Bjorn Rorslett's comments on the lens).

As some of you might know, I've looking into purchasing a fast telephoto lens for low light candid/street photography (if not also for portraits and sports, as an alternative to the 70-200 type of lens). I've tried several lenses (including the 180 f/2.8, the 80-200 f/2.8, and also briefly the 70-200 f/2.8 VR ) extensively, but the results weren't perfect, and I ended up not knowing what to do. I found the 180 f/2.8 to be a slow and "loud" focusing lens. While its image quality was good, its long FL tend to "magnify" camera shake and rendered many of my otherwise usable images blurred (I photographed relatively static scenes and wasn't trying to freeze subject motion). The 80-200 also suffered from the issues related to the lack of VR (sometimes tripods and monopods weren't convenient to use), and during AF it tend to "jump" due to the movement of its heavy internal parts, thus aggrevated the "no-VR issues" further. The 70-200 f/2.8 seemed to be quite good: good image quality, effective VR, good bokeh, and good design; but its price tag require me to seriously bite the bullet, while its "DX lens like performance on FX" troubles me (my next body might be FX).

Now after the process of elimination, I'm left the 105 f/2.8 VR as my only potential choice (and only in theory the 200 f/2 VR). So would like to know more about the lens. I am not really into Macro photography, but occassionally take some faux macro shots, so I be will using the lens like a normal tele-prime.

Thanks for your educated comments.

robertbody · December 19, 2008

It is purdy good.... i haven't narrowed it down how and why I like it, now that I think about it, I really like it at infinity focus and f/8 and f/11 on D300 (this is at f/4.8):

At f/4, somewhat close focus, in daylight I like it:

or better yet (f/4.8):

I consider it a poor-man's 70-200mm f/2.8 the way I use it, because it's my longest lens and i sure could use a longer lens, but then i justify it with how much weight the 70-200mm would add, and how this 105mm cropped to 50% is kind of like 200mm... and it's $760 vs $1600.

The macro feature I enjoy, but..... there are flaws. VR + macro doesn't work at the same time, if you point the lens down straight, the weight of the lens elements changes focus!!! in seconds....

but the results are great. What i like is the 2-in-1 with Telephoto+Macro.

This bee photo was at 1/250s f/9.5 and handheld (i wish it wasn't, the focus could be a bit better) and 89% crop

I had the lens for over a year, the only time I don't like it is in bad light when it's too short as well, like in this picture:

but I think it's a matter of light and dull colors of the meadow not the lens... even though I would think the 70-200 might have given a little more life to the colors

I can't say much bad about the lens, it's worth the $762, and with right exposure and light it can do great things :-).

colin cadle · December 19, 2008

The 105 VR is a magic lens, you will be delighted with the sharpness, especially for portraits and macro work, but for street photography you will be totally frustrated with the lack opf framing ability which comes with a zoom. If you do buy it, think yourself lucky you don't live in the UK. The same lens cost me your equivalent of nearly $1000 (this was before the British Pound lost all it's value against the Dollar!). This is the lens dubbed "the ones the ladies don't like" because it shows every hair and wrinkle in minute detail!

jose_angel · December 19, 2008

I think many people are in a similar or same situation as you... don`t want to spend such money on the current 70-200VR. If you don`t need it right now, probably the choice could be the 105VR (it has been my choice). I`m pretty sure that if Nikon release a 70-200VRII, even if the same lens with a different sticker and "N" coatings, many people will feel better buying it. Nikon didn`t offered that update yet probably because don`t have anything actually better to offer, and looks like the current one is working right after some firmware updates on FX cameras. How good this lens performs on the D3X? We will see. If your next camera is going to be a D3X, I understand you must be on trouble, thought. The 105VR works fine for me, what Robert and Colin says plus fast silent accurate AF, no close focus limit, not so bad bokeh (at least to my liking), polyvalent usable focal lenght, smaller&lighter than the 70-200VR... the CA issue is not as noticeable to me and it`s probably one if not my sharpest lens (and I have soooo many Nikkors... ). I have read some comments from KR about it (I think that he must had very bad copies (!!) or he didn`t consider how AF works and its limitations) or from Rorslett who is an expert used to exotic top lenses with way higher requirements in comparison to me. The 200VR must be a wonder but is not as polyvalent, like a specialty lens to me. Too much money that I`d prefer to invest on perhaps a longer lens.

jose_angel · December 19, 2008

105VR cannot remember if @ f4...

robertbody · December 19, 2008

Yes on Colin's comment on "lack of zooming" for street photography -- from 70mm to 200mm is a lot of range.

I wasn't impressed with the bokeh of 70-200mm in this case... maybe the light colored out-of-focus sources of light are most challenging... but i was expecting more from the 70-200mm

Nikon 70-200mm, ISO-400, 1/3000s f/2.8, 70mm

Nikon 105mm, ISO-400, 1/250s f/2.8

the bokeh was good in the following, and i think the colors would be better than with 105mm... just a feeling.. also the zoom helped a lot.

Nikon 70-200, ISO-400, 1/500s f/2.8, 200mm

I used the 70-200mm once for a week, it wasn't tempting for me to buy though. I had my 105mm for a year, and i wasn't overly impressed with the 70-200mm. i find it a heavy combo for handholding without a monopod. I wouldn't hesitate to rent it for something like street photos on occasion, but i don't see it being part of my everyday set of 17-35mm, 50mm f/1.8, 105mm..... the weight of that combo is enough. I can get away with a fanny pack holding the lenses i don't have on camera. I would be nice to have 180mm AF-S, I used the 180mm f/2.8 and found the focus to be way slow for flying birds.

105mm might be too short for street photography... depends which streets, in Europe and Asia the streets might be a lot narrower than US..... if you were using Canon, you would have 4 choices with 70-200.... with or without IS, f/2.8 or f/4..... then for under $1000 you could get a non-IS f/4 or just over $1100 you could get f/4 with IS or f/2.8 without IS.

When i think of using long super-telephotos [again], i definately want to rent a Canon 500mm f/4 with a bought 40D or a rented something. Nikon's option woudl be a lot more to rent $400 vs $260 for 1 week with that lens. If i wanted to do what you're doing [but it wouldn't be something i would do often], i would rent a lens, then rent something else, maybe even rent Canon+body to both expand my choices, and try something Nikon doesn't let me try [different lenses].

Higher ISO can help too, some people like the grainy look, and sometimes you prefer the Black&White choice, so the ISO noise can be 'artistic'.

jose_angel · December 19, 2008

The 180mm is too long for me as a polyvalent lens, but equally attractive... I tend to use more the 105VR. I think I prefer out of focus rendering of the 105VR. Below 180/2.8 (this one manual focus) at f4:<div>

00RqNP-98877584.jpg.9d8c49a33f58f1f7ff3b94495f2ded4c.jpg

</div>

shuo_zhao · December 19, 2008

>> "current one is working right after some firmware updates on FX cameras"

Jose, from what I heard, the firmware fix only resolve the problem with vignetting. The lack of sharpness in the corner remains, since details not captured in the first place cannot be created like that. From my observation the 70-200's effect on the FX format is almost Dejavu to the effects of using the 17-55 DX on its wide end on a FX body. Whoever's paying $1600 for the lens really has a reason to be upset or at least to be concerned.

>> "How good this lens performs on the D3X? We will see. If your next camera is going to be a D3X, I understand you must be on trouble, thought."

I was actually shocked to see the 70-200 mounted on the D3 as one of Nikon's official product images for the announcement. The corners would be even more problematic on the D3X, especially for landscape and architecture. Bytheway, if go ahead and get FX, it's probably going to be a D700 grade camera.

>> "the CA issue is not as noticeable to me"

I think the newer bodies correct that automatically.

>> "The 200VR must be a wonder but is not as polyvalent, like a specialty lens to me. Too much money that I`d prefer to invest on perhaps a longer lens."

The 200 VR can only be a choice in theory, it's simply way over budget. As far as longer lenses goes, the only two non exotic choices we got are the 300 f/4 and the 80-400 VR (not counting the 70-300s). Neither of them is "perfect". Obviously one needs VR, and the other needs SWM/AF-S.

>> "I would be nice to have 180mm AF-S"

Another problem I discovered with the 180 is the lack of VR. By definition you need to shoot at 1/180s or 1/270s on DX to minimize blurring due to camera shake. I think for someone who's steady and uses good technique, 1/60s is the bottom line, and that's not exactly good.

>> "if you were using Canon, you would have 4 choices with 70-200.... with or without IS, f/2.8 or f/4..... then for under $1000 you could get a non-IS f/4 or just over $1100 you could get f/4 with IS or f/2.8 without IS."

I just checked, the non-IS f/4L version is selling for $580, and the f/4L IS is priced at $950. Both are excellent choices. There's also the 200 f/2.8L, cheaper and b*tter counterpart to the 180 AF-D. I been thinking about using Canon for telephoto shooting, while keeping my Nikon system for general use.

ilkka_nissila · December 19, 2008

By definition you need to shoot at 1/180s or 1/270s on DX to minimize blurring due to camera shake.

The 1/(FL*CF) is a rough guideline for the shutter speed which typically results in a just barely acceptable image, not a really sharp one; for the latter you need still higher speeds or a tripod. I think for the 180, 1/500s is a good lower limit below which you can expect that using another lens with VR may give a better result when hand-holding.

I found the 180 f/2.8 to be a slow and "loud" focusing lens.

I can't argue that it autofocuses particularly fast, but I've never thought it was "loud". Did you have both the lens switch and the body switch set to AF? If you have the body switch set to AF and the lens set to M the focusing ring will cause additional drag for the AF system and even rotate as the lens autofocuses. This is not correct usage but not everyone realizes it - it's one of the few autofocus Nikkors where both switches should always be set the same way. It might explain why the lens was "loud" when focusing.

With regards to the original question, the 105 VR is the only Nikon medium telephoto prime with AF-S and VR, but this you already know. I don't consider it to be one of Nikon's best lenses, but it is a good lens and can result in interesting photographs which might otherwise not be taken.

But I'll have to add that by using a tripod when shooting still subjects (and when possible) and higher shutter speeds otherwise, your results will most likely be better and you can choose from a much broader selection of high quality lenses than limiting to those which have VR. Sometimes (usually) convenience must be sacrificed to get top quality results.

Even if the 200/2 weren't so expensive, it's a 2.9kg lens so anyone who is not using a tripod already isn't going to get much use out of this lens. Ok, there are situations where it can be hand-held (i.e. sports photography where a monopod might be ideal) but it's not the right way to avoid using a tripod...

walterh · December 19, 2008

This thread is a nice and almost complete collection of minor weak points of several lenses. May I add that the 105 VR Micro Nikkor has a weak point in manual focus? Sometimes you might want to use MF and a real MF lens would be far superior in precision and "feel".

Also a complete metal construction might last at least two to three decades like the old 105 f2.5 and 2.8 versions of the AIS midrange teles. The "chip" and the VR in the lens may not last for decades and this might be a severe limitation, at least if you are not of old age like me :-)

So in the end you might have to wait for the perfect lens if you do not want to get anything not perfect in all respects. While waiting one or two decades for a cheap fast, low light, light weight, extremels fast and quiet AFS, VR zoom with extreme range, perfect fit for FX, good for action, portrait and macro with best possible bokeh (at least much better than the 70-200 VR that some praised for pretty good bokeh) you could get a cheap old 105mm F2.5 AIS lens. There you could practice your skill in shooting and post processing, tripod carrying muscle build up, and then hit the market once the dream lens comes across :-)

( Not trying to be too sarcastic but coming back from x-mas get-together with good spirits^^. Perhaps a source of good thought about lens picking).

paul_garland · December 19, 2008

It is fantastic. Best lens I own. My only complaint is that it is heavy as a brick.

shuo_zhao · December 19, 2008

>> "Did you have both the lens switch and the body switch set to AF?"

I had the switch disengaged. Obviously with the switch in M mode, the AF speed would be very slow (too slow for a f/2.8 lens), and there would be a grinding noise.

>> "But I'll have to add that by using a tripod when shooting still subjects (and when possible) and higher shutter speeds otherwise, your results will most likely be better and you can choose from a much broader selection of high quality lenses than limiting to those which have VR."

This is true. But for street photography, the use of tripod would just completely expose my intentions to my subjects, thus ruin the "natural" look of the scene.

ilkka_nissila · December 19, 2008

But for street photography, the use of tripod would just completely expose my intentions to my subjects, thus ruin the "natural" look of the scene.

I mentioned the tripod since static scenes were mentioned in the original post. I can see that it wouldn't work all that well for street photography.

In street photography, I need to use higher shutter speeds to prevent blur due to subject movement. At anything slower than 1/200s, the slow movement of a standing person may be visible in a photograph (with moving people, even higher speeds are often needed). VR would only give a slight advantage here, 1 stop or so with FX and a bit more with DX.

ilkka_nissila · December 19, 2008

On the other hand if your subject is sitting as in a cafe, leaning somewhere, a bit slower shutter speeds such as 1/60s to 1/100s probably work fine with some percentage of keepers, and there VR obviously can be very helpful here. I didn't think of this as usually my street subjects aren't as still. But photography is a game of numbers - you don't have full control over the subject and so there is some uncertainty involved.

Continuing about the original question. I've used the 105VR to shoot people in the street when it's raining - the umbrellas make for fun photos, and with the VR you can use slower speeds to show a bit more of the rain as it leaves longer trails. The SWM works well and manual focusing is easier than with most autofocus lenses. The photos taken with it typically have vivid colours and high contrast.

The 105 VR has received both glowing and dismissing comments from users. I'll attempt to explain why this is so. It is a lens which can give excellent results in some subjects yet in another situation it can be disappointing. It depends a lot on what you're trying to do. If one would try to isolate why it doesn't always do well, I'd have to say that it doesn't deliver the kind of robust sharpness in close-up subjects at wide apertures that some other lenses can do. The 105VR has advantages in color rendition (which is exquisite) and bokeh (which is beautiful) and often the in-focus plane is quite sharply rendered if you stop down sufficiently (f/11). However, if you need a wide aperture in the close-up range or if you want to maximize subject sharpness and allow for a less perfect bokeh you can do better with some other macro lenses, including the 60mm f/2.8G AF-S and the 100mm f/2 ZF. The 105 VR tries to be all-in-one short tele - macro, portrait, general photography, small and large apertures, low light etc. It succeeds in some respects and in others it fails - you just need to discover which lens works best for which applications. If you're not a hard core macro shooter and want a versatile short tele for general photography and especially street, I don't think you'll be disappointed with the 105 VR - I think it performs well in such a context, although I often use a 135 or 180 instead. Hope this clarifies the issue.

shuo_zhao · December 20, 2008

>> "On the other hand if your subject is sitting as in a cafe, leaning somewhere, a bit slower shutter speeds such as 1/60s to 1/100s probably work fine with some percentage of keepers, and there VR obviously can be very helpful here."

That's usually the case. Sometime only the static objects need to be rendered blur-free, while some motion blurring of the moving objects is ok.

Thanks Ilkka.

todd_angood · December 21, 2008

I have been thoroughly pleased with the lens. I'm still feeling my way around with doing macro work. Attached is a non macro picture. You won't be sorry if you purchase this lens.<div>

</div>

Sign In

105 f/2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor: How good is it?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in