105mm Micro 'D' version & non 'D'?

I'm a little confused about the difference between the 105mm micro AF

lens in 'D' version and non 'D' version. I'm looking for a micro lens

for my D70 and have seen both of these advertised. Could someone tell

me the difference and which one might be better for the D70, or if it

makes a difference.

I am not aware of a *non-D* version of the 105mm/f2.8 AF Micro Nikkor. Perhaps one exists and I don't know.

 

It is said to make a difference with on-Camera flash, but I have never experienced it because I do so little flash work. But you should always try and get the D version of any AF lens whenever possible.

There indeed was one non-D version.

<P>

<a href="http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/105_micro.htm">http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/105_micro.htm</a>

<P>

<b>"In 1990 the AF Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 appeared and three years later the D-version was introduced."</b>

There is no practical difference. Save yourself some money and pick up a used one if you

can. This is one of the finest lenses you will ever use. Good luck with your search.

The D lens takes distance into account when the camera does it's calculating. This is most useful when using the flash.

Thank you all for your answers. This helped me out a lot. Ebay has several excellent 'non D' version lenses offered at half the price of a 'D' version. Since I use a micro infrequently, but still want one in my bag, this might be a good opportunity to pick the lens up cheap.

Of course, you'll still want an AF lens and not an AI or AI-S, since those are not compatable with the D70.

I can't find any real stats on the Nikon 105mm AF micro non 'D' version on the Internet. Before I make a decision I'd like some informed knowledge on this lens and how it will work with my D-70.

I have the 105mm/f2.8 AF macro right in front of me as I am posting this answer. Optically there is no difference between this lens and the later D version. In fact, having D is the only difference between the two. Either version will work fine on your D70 with AF and all types of metering available. Since most people agree that having D is merely a minor advantage in some flash situations, the price spread between the two versions should be minor as well.

 

Most macro work is done with manual focus anyway so that AF is not important. However, the small viewfinder on your D70 can be an issue with critical manual focus, but that is an issue with the body, not the lens.

I'll bet that all the non-D lenses on Ebay are because the owner is getting a D lens.

70% of my macro work is done with a 105mm AF-D lens, the balance being handled by a

35+ year-old 55mm f3.5 AIS (which is sharper than the 105, BTW). For the type of work I

assume somebody would be considering a dedicated macro lens for, there is no practical

difference between between "D", "non-D", "AIS", or whatever, though Carlos probably

would find it easier to work with an AF lens on his D70. The exposure is either right or it

isn't and with digital, you get instant feedback, so it's moot. I'm not going so far as to

accuse Nikon of inventing a marketing scheme, but I challenge anybody to post,

demonstrate, or otherwise show images taken with an identical camera body, identical

strobes, identical film (or digital settings, better yet) and the same lens in both "D" and

"non-D" incarnations that show a clear advantage to the "D" version. I recall people

speculating that a D-lens would handle tricky situations where lots of reflective surfaces

were involved. Maybe so, but since very few people shoot only pictures of mirrors or

chrome, who really knows?

 

For many years, my entire field kit consisted of the two abovementioned macros plus a

20mm AF, non-D lens. Two lenses for shooting plants and critters up close, one super-

wide for getting close and keping the bakground in the frame. Fill-flash was always used.

Another guy I periodically shot with had a 20mm AF-D. Guess what?: No difference in

exposures whatsoever. You either nail it or you don't and with a digital body, you can nail

it every time.

 

Is there a mechanical difference between "D" and "non-D" lenses? Sure. Is there a real-

world performance difference? Nobody has clearly demonstrated that yet and "D" lenses

have been on the market for close to 10 years now. There are lots of things to like about

this lens, such as its robust build quality, good manual focussing action, optical

performance near 1:1 and some things I would change (harsh bokeh and crappy

aperature ring) but if my 105 fell into a lake tomorrow, I then needed to buy a new one,

and somebody placed both a "D" and "non-D" lens on the table in front of me of equal

condition, my decision would be based only on price, not upon mysterious technology

which any person has yet to be able to empirically demonstrate actually taking a better

picture. Buy one and use it, you won't regret it.