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

http://simpho.free.fr/vr105/vr105e.html

I thought you guys had all decided this is a worthless lens before even seeing one.

Ilkka, who's "you guys"? Anyway -- IIRC, all I said was 1. not having a tripod collar on a lens of this size and weight is a shame and 2. having VR will not help closeups of 1:2 and up.

 

I still stand by what I said, and the review does not demonstrate anything against that .. yet.

Since "you guys" are discussing this lens.... I recently purchased one, and I love it! As far as the necessity of VR is concerned, it's never necessary when you carry a tripod....but, sometimes, you just end up in situations with low light and no tripod. The jury is still out as far as how well it works, but I love this lens! It takes beautiful sharp pictures with much better bokeh than the non-VR 105mm predecessor, which I also have.

 

One thing I noticed in the booklet/manual that comes with it is that the TC-14E II 1.4X Teleconverter can be used with this lens. I am wondering...will the addition of this teleconverter make this lens combination 1:1.4? I may just have to go give it a try tomorrow... ;-)

The 105 VR Micro looks nice on paper, but using it in practice tells another story. The lens barrel is now massive and you need a big hand to get a good grip on it. VR does work nicely, but unless you use a tripod you end up with a lot of close-ups of just adequate, but not perfect, sharpness. VR shouldn't be used with the lens/camera on a tripod so there is yet another slider to set correctly and Murphy's Law dictates you'll forget this when shooting someting of critical importance or at slow shutter speeds.

 

Like the predecessor it uses the trick of shortening the focal length during focusing meaning that in a distance from slightly less than 40 cm to 31.4 cm (near limit), the magnification changes dramatically from 1:2 to 1:1. Fine if you hand-hold the lens, hopeless if the camera is on a tripod since you cannot adjust focus ever so slightly without altering the framing of the subject in a major way. This in fact was the very reason I dropped using my 105/2.8 AF and reverted to the manual f/2.8 and f/4 models instead.

 

Colours are rendered better than the old 105 AF and the bokeh is much better. The "nano" coating probably gives crisper images as well. However, the optimum aperture range is still f/5.6 to f/11, and the IF design gives a slight emphasis to reddish fringes in the foreground and the complementary greenish ones in the background of the focused zone. CA isn't very obvious. much less so than with the older AF version, but you can see it on the D2X.

 

AF with the TC14E is slow and slightly erratic, and with the TC17E just a bad joke. True, Nikon warns against AF with TCs and evidently for a good reason. You do get VR with the converters, CA isues are added, and sharpness declines a bit. But the lens will give greater than life-size images with the converters. In fact, as long as there is no "G" compatible extension ring in the Nikon product line, this is the only way of going beyond 1:1 with the AFS 105 VR lens (I'm not familiar with possible third-party offerings).

 

Is the 105VR Micro a good lens? Obviously a lot of engineering efforts have gone into the new design and for many this will be a dream lens. I'm lukewarm and have no immediate plans of purchasing one for myself, although my aim of owning each and every Micro-Nikkor conflicts a little with this decision.

Bjorn,

You are usually right on relative to lens assessments. I purchased a 200 VR F2.0 based on

your evaluation. I for one like the 105 VR. I find it to be a very nice improvement over the

previous 105. I do not find the size to large and like the way the Nikon ring light fits. I

have shot the lens hand-held with VR and find the pictures equal to the previous model. I

have used the lens on a monopod and the VR seems to capture the framed image. If you

already have the non-VR model and shoot it well, don't upgrade. If you do not have a 105,

then go with the VR model as it seems to be an adequate Nikon product. Do you happen

to know if Nikon is working on a supe tele with VR? I already have the 200-400 and would

love to see a 400-600 F4.0 VR. By the way your butterfly shots are GREAT.

Ilkka, Some of the "you guys" you refer to, I think, have been trying to talk down the 105 VR in the hope of getting the price lowered! :-)

 

I want a non G 125mm f/1.8 Macro. I don't mind VR, "nano" coating (any ancient MgF2 coating was a "nano" coating if anyone bothered to look at them through a TEM!) and/or Kate advertising it.

Geez, I am wondering whether Ilkka was talking about me behind my back. Exactly who these "you guys" are; could you specify the names? :-)

 

Seriously, since I already have the 105mm/f2.8 AF macro, the AF-S VR is not a high-priority item. I'll wait a year or two for the price to come down a bit and let those "you guys" buy the early ones.

Bjorn, thanks for your comments. There is a lot in your post that I don't understand.

<p><i>

another story. The lens barrel is now massive and you need a big hand to get a good grip on it. VR does work nicely, but unless you

</i><p>

I can't imagine handling the 200/2 is any easier ... yet you say it's one of your favorite lenses.

<p>

<i>

use a tripod you end up with a lot of close-ups of just adequate, but not perfect, sharpness. VR shouldn't be used with the

</i><p>

VR is used when you can't get the shot from a tripod or when you can't use one. I can imagine a lot of situations in scientific documentation / research field trips where this could be the case.

<p><i>

lens/camera on a tripod so there is yet another slider to set correctly and Murphy's Law dictates you'll forget this when shooting

</i><p>

With no switch VR would kick in when it wanted to, and not leave any control to the user? Obviously there is no way to predict random motion 100% accurately. The switch is necessary.<p><i>

Like the predecessor it uses the trick of shortening the focal length during focusing meaning that in a distance from slightly less than 40 cm to 31.4 cm (near limit), the magnification changes dramatically from 1:2 to 1:1. Fine if you hand-hold the lens, hopeless if the camera is on a tripod since you cannot adjust focus ever so slightly without altering the framing of the subject in a major way. This in fact was the very reason I dropped using my 105/2.8 AF and reverted to the manual f/2.8 and f/4 models instead.

</i><p>

The manual focus Micro 105s only go to 1:2. So you abandoned a lens that goes to 1:1 based on its behaviour between 1:2 and 1:1 when the manual focus lens can't do that at all? Or is it that when you add a tube, the distance/magnification behaviour is different?<p>

<i>

Colours are rendered better than the old 105 AF and the bokeh is much better. The "nano" coating probably gives crisper images as well. However, the optimum aperture range is still f/5.6 to f/11,

</i>

<p>

Are the colors rendered by the manual focus Micro Nikkors better than the VR?

<p>

<i>

and the IF design gives a slight emphasis to reddish fringes in the foreground and the complementary greenish ones in the background of the focused zone. CA isn't very obvious. much less so than with the older AF version, but you can see it on the D2X.

</i>

<p>

Is the color fringing worse on the VR than on the manual focus versions?

<p>

<i>

AF with the TC14E is slow and slightly erratic, and with the TC17E just a bad joke. True, Nikon warns against AF with TCs and evidently

</i>

<p>

AF isn't traditionally useable at all on macro lenses so it's still an improvement, right?

<p><i>

than life-size images with the converters. In fact, as long as there is no "G" compatible extension ring in the Nikon product line, this is the only way of going beyond 1:1 with the AFS 105 VR lens (I'm not familiar with possible third-party offerings). </i>

<p>

Can anyone confirm whether the Kenko tubes work with G lenses? This is my main reason not to get the 105 VR, I would need to keep the 105 AF-D to use with extension.

I think you all know who I meant by "you guys". :-) Just look up the previous discussions on this lens and the overwhelming negative comments by many of the forum regulars.

 

Personally I am tempted by the unbelievably nice colors I've seen in 105VR images. I can't imagine any handling issues would overcome that desire. But the lack of an aperture ring is a major disappointment and Nikon should rethink their policy of whether to introduce more G primes. I won't be happy to buy them.

"I can't imagine handling the 200/2 is any easier ... " - Ilkka

 

I believe purpose of those two lenses are very different and they should not be compared just because both of them are VR.

 

For closeups up to 1:4 (this may vary slightly from person to person) or thereabout, handheld camera-shake mostly affects sharpness and can be helped by VR. For closeups beyond 1:4 handheld camera-shake can affect 1. sharpness, 2. desired plane of focus and 3. composition. You cannot help 2 & 3 with VR.

 

If you look closely, you'll see all photos posted in that link could be shot as-is/approximated with the 200/2 VR (or any non-VR tele lens, for that matter) .. the 200/2 does 1:8.

 

The results look terrific, and I'm not arguing that. My point is -- none of those photos demonstrate usefulness of VR in closeups of 1:2 to 1:1.

<I>For closeups up to 1:4 (this may vary slightly from person to person) or thereabout,

handheld camera-shake mostly affects sharpness and can be helped by VR. For closeups

beyond 1:4 handheld camera-shake can affect 1. sharpness, 2. desired plane of focus and

3. composition. You cannot help 2 & 3 with VR.</i><P>

 

I certainly agree that for optimal sharpness in close-up work, you can't beat a tripod. But

sometimes a tripod doesn't allow sufficient mobility to chase fast-moving subjects. From

some experience I'm a little skeptical of arguments that VR won't help much for work in

the near- 1:1 range. I don't use Nikon stuff but I've found that Canon's IS can be very

helpful for close-up work, using a 500D closeup lens with a 100-400 zoom. That

combination gets pretty close to 1:1 and for me at least, the stabilization feature of this

lens is a great help for Arnab's points 1 and 3 (composition is easier if your image is

stable). The plane of focus argument (point 2) does pertain to VR/IS, but you're certainly

no worse off with stabilzation than without it.<P>

 

In short, I'd withhold judgment on the utility of VR in macro work until there's been a

reasonable amount of user experience.

I think one of the previous posts in question is here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G66h&tag=

 

but I don't think the post really concluded that the lens is useless... I think the general thought is that usefulness of the VR based on what application (or actually reproduction ratio aka working distance) you will be working with. Undeniably, one item that should please everyone interested in this lens is the better bokeh. Also, by any means if one has the funds why not go for the newer one?

 

I find the note that the new lens is tad bit heavier interesting.... Didn't pay attention to that, but I guess 8 ounces or so isn't that drastic. For me one other item that makes me scratch my head is the fact that the lens has a 62mm thread. This **might** be something to keep in mind if you ever tried reversing a lens (using a simple 52mm male to male coupler) to use some of the older short primes to go beyond 1:1 -- but there are plenty of ways around it.

 

Btw, if you work close to 1:1, to the previous thread points, the sudden change in magnification ratio does warrant a focusing stage adding to the overall weight of a macro setup.

 

Now if the good people at Nikon re-did the 200mm f/4 by adding a VR and AF-S to get rid of the ever cracking AF/MF switch -- that would be a dream.

Bjorn, you state "The lens barrel is now massive and you need a big hand to get a good grip on it."

 

I would disagree...I have small hands, even for a woman, and I do not find the lens to be difficult to handle due to size. However, it IS a surpisingly heavy lens for it's size.

 

Thanks for your comments re: use of the teleconverters. Somehow, use of teleconverters with a close-up lens was not something I would expect to even be an option!

I posted a reply elsewhere!

 

Here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fwj1 Malcolm Farrow demonstarted the use of VR, nicely.

 

The rest is just talk.

"Somehow, use of teleconverters with a close-up lens was not something I would expect to even be an option!"

 

Unless they are matched :) -- the Tamron 90mm/f2.8 SP AF Macro and Tamron TC 1.4x SP AF for example -- no fall in quality that I could see!

 

Dee, am always up for shots from your new 105 VR -- pls post as you are able.

Shun, "You guys" evidently includes me ;)

 

It's a G lens, henceforth has no value to me... The results are nice, no doubt about it-- but would you expect less for a lens that nears $1k? For those who need VR (Kate Moss?) its the one and only offer... However, my Tamron 90 Di, which lists for less than half, would be a much better solution (no fringing however hard I try to look for it), and it mounts on my Fm3a too.

>For those who need VR (Kate Moss?)

 

Nah -- those who shoot her need VR.

Arnab, VR would not compensate subject movement... ;)

"...those who shoot her need VR..."

 

Occasional shot of 4 ouncs of 80 proof works well for shaky hands.... IMHO a phenomenal alternative to VR. Now that's delicious! (lol!)

 

(btw... it worked for Kate!)

I was photographing at the Oriental Institute in Chicago, where a tripod is not allowed. I could have used this lens there, especially with a polarizer and subjects behind glass.

I can't resist joining the debate about this lens again, not least because so much criticism

of it comes from people who haven't used it, or who take macro photographs with the

camera firmly mounted on a tripod - i.e. for whom VR technology is irrelevent. It's a

shame that so many people seem unable to imagine uses or situations when this kind of

technology might give some photographers the edge, even if they themselves find no use

for it. It's also a shame that it's automatically assumed that the VR technology wont work

at close-up ranges.

 

As I've stated previously, I use macro lenses to shoot insects, mainly butterflies, out in the

field, in conditions over which I have little or no control. For me, this lens is simply perfect.

I ordered it the day it was announced and it has fully lived up to my expectations. For my

work, it is superior to lenses without VR technology, and I already have images that prove

it. Ironically, my belief in the superiority of this lens was confirmed by accident - I turned

the VR system off by mistake and hardly got a sharp image until I turned it back on again.

Certainly, even with VR, not all the images are free of shake, but a much higher percentage

are and that's more than good enough for me.

 

Attached is a "real world" example - an image of a Green Hairstreak, a small European

butterfly, that I took, hand held, on Friday. It was shot at 1/120 sec at f13, ISO250 using

fill flash from a diffused SB600. The butterfly is very small, about 18mm across, and the

image has been cropped slightly along the long side - but I must have been working pretty

close (the pedents can argue about what the precise magnification is). At these settings, I

would have been VERY lucky to get a sharp, shake-free image with a conventional lens.

However, with the new VR lens, all the four or five shots I got, before the insect flew, were

acceptably sharp. The only limitation on the images was the limited depth of field, which

means the wing-tip etc. is drifting slightly out of focus. It's an image that would have

simply been impossible with a tripod and very hard with a conventional lens.

 

I guess that, at the end of the day, if the doubters want to stay unconvinced it's fine by

me. But the results clearly speak for themselves and I'll have many more publishable

images this year!

 

One small comment on Bjørn's remarks "However, the optimum aperture range is still f/

5.6 to f/11" - given diffraction, it would be surprising if this were not the case. I find that

images are still reasonably good (i.e. usable) at f/16.

 

Hope this is of some interest. A crop at 100% follows.

 

Regards

 

Malcolm

100% crop of the above image - looks pretty shake-free to me...

Very nice, Malcolm. Not only a good demo of the VR lens but also a good use of the iTTL flash.

There is no doubt many people will like this lens, and as I stated in my review, some will even consider it their "dream" lens. It all depends on your needs. VR can save some close-ups, but isn't much help for hand-held shooting near 1:1 if you want critically sharp images. The shortening of the focal length when you approach 1:2 means the working distance will be short. There is detectable CA under some circumstances.

 

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 don't mind adding an extension tube if this means I'll get a longer working distance, and as long as the lens continues to deliver really sharp images like the older Micro-Nikkors do on the D2X. The 105 VR is undeniably more convenient *if* you use it hand-held and undeniable less convenient on a tripod when you work really close (due to the linkage between focusing, shortening of focal length, and image magnification giving no degrees of freedom below 1:2). On the other hand, you can get by with adequate sharpness on some close-ups which could be difficult to get otherwise unless you had a flexible tripod system, it handles contrasting light better than most lenses, and so on. So let there be no doubt this is a lens well worth having. I reported in the review what I could observe of positive or negative details and after a few more days in the field with this lens, I stand by every word. There is no such thing as a free lunch and the nifty features of the 105 VR do have a price. Simple as that.