105mm VR Questions

I was reading a reviw that this lens is not as sharp as the older version. And

that it changes to get to 1:1 reproduction. Is this lens worth the price or is

there someting else. Let me know what you think? Thank you

What review were you reading?

 

Although Bjorn didn't seem to be crazy about it, Thom Hogan highly recommended it.

Remember that VR and AF don't really matter at really close focusing distance with a macro

lens.

 

Read Thom's review for sure... http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

considering that when you use a micro lens you need a study tripod and manual focus is easy to achieve, IMO the 105mm micro VR AFS is WAY overpriced.

I had the 105mm 2.8 AFD and it was TACK SHARP, and cost half the money.

I'd avoid the VR AF-S version, spend your money wisely.. ;)

If you are using this lens strictly for macro, you really don't need either AF-S or VR, but those features may be helpful for other applications.

Hi Preston

 

In my opinion more rubbish is written about the 105VR Macro Nikkor than any other lens in the entire Nikon range.

 

It's a superb lens optically. Any differences between this lens and other 90-105mm lenses are likely to be almost impossible to detect in general use, particularly once the lens is stopped down to the kind of apertures usually used for close up work. My sample is certainly as sharp as any other lens I've ever used, macro or otherwise.

 

The other common fallacies rolled out when discussing this lens are that you MUST use a tripod for close up work and thus that the VR system offers no benefits for this type of photography, and that the VR system is actually ineffective when used in this range. Both are incorrect.

 

Of course, if your subject is static, I tripod is the way to go. But the whole point of this lens is that it makes hand holding a practical possibility for a whole range of close up subjects, particularly for insects and nature work. True, VR basically offers no advantage at closer than half life size, but between 1:2 and 1:5 it will certainly result in many more keepers, making it useful for a wide range of subjects that require a hand held approach.

 

This assertion is based on two summers of successful field work using this lens. The attached picture is a typical example of what this lens is ideal for - a fleeting moment caught hand held at 1/90 second at f14.

 

Hope this is helpful.

 

Kind regards

 

Malcolm<div></div>

Rent it and see.

 

Last year I got wiped out on photo equipment (burglary), and I had a bunch of insurance money to spend on replacements. Out of the five figure shipment I got from B&H, the 105VR alone was, 'wait a minute, this is way cool!' I had my expectations in place for most of the rest of the gear, as it was direct replacement. The ease of making sharp macro photos at 1:4 or so in available light at 1/20th or so just blew me away.

 

I have been exploring whether this lens is a better low light tele king than the 85/1.4 AFD, and my answer is 'not quite'. It's a reasonable substitute if the subject is static, but it has not replaced the 85/1.4 in my bag for low light.

 

Following the lead of somebody else here (I forget who), the 105VR is in my light 'go bag' in lieu of the 70-200VR. If I'm not shooting sports, it's a reasonable compromise.

I have the old 105 and the new 105 VR. With the nano coating and the newer optics, pictures taken with the 105 VR just seem to have better clarity and color which gives it the appearance of being sharper.

 

http://www.mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/122-WILDLIFE-2/bees/20-wildlife-bees-beeflying-1-htm.htm

Malcolm, very interesting points. I never considered VR would be that helpful for macro.

Yes, the lens is worth the price. But if you don't have the money, there are certainly other alternatives.

 

Proper lighting is probably the most important consideration for wonderful macro shots. I have a $20 set of screw-on macro lenses (used them on my 18-55 before I bought the 105mm AF) that do a great job, especially for the money. I am not suggesting you get them. I just want to bring to your attention that without really good lighting, macro shots don't look appealing regardless of what lens is being used.

Malcolm, beautiful shot!

Thanks Elliott - much appreciated!

 

Shun, you're completely correct that this lens doesn't offer any advantages for traditional macro type work, and closer than 1:2, the VR facility is completely ineffective. So for anyone who only shoots static subjects or wants true macro there are other lenses that offer far better value.

 

My working technique has evolved from a wish to shoot images of active insects so that I can capture examples of natural behaviour, rather than the dew-covered early morning shots or the classic open wing poses you see so often (though I take those too, when the opportunity presents itself!). I use VR and AFS all the time, relying on choosing the correct focussing point to get the subject sharp. It's quite a challenge and I get a lot of failures, but a lot of successes too. Typically, I can work at at shutter speeds one or two stops slower than I would normally expect from a non-VR lens - a worthwhile advantage. In fact subject movement is often more of a problem than camera shake.

 

This year I swapped from a D200 to a D2x to take advantage of its better autofocusing system. I'm very excited about the new D300 - the more central array of cross-sensors will suit my working method perfectly and it will be a lot lighter to carry than my D2x! A small improvement in noise performance would also be desirable.

 

I'm certainly someone for whom the cropped sensor is a significant advantage and I certainly hope high end DX cameras are part of Nikon's plans for a long time to come.

 

Regards to all

 

Malcolm

One reason why opinions diverge on the 105 VR is that the lens itself might show quality variation. I've met plenty of other photographers that are non-enthusiastic about the 105VR, and msot use the lens hand-held and with VR in action. Then, there are users that rave about its quality.

 

I do own a copy of the 105VR, since my modest aim in life is having each and every Micro/Macro-Nikkor ever made by Nikon. Careful testing of this lens against other Micro-Nikkors shows my sample to perform poorer than any other, and having VR activated exacerbate the situation further. I even had the lens checked out at the national Nikon repair facility and they verified my findings.I'm currently in the process of having the lens replaced.

 

To write off real-life experiences as "rubbish" tells more about the person than the gear.

I agree with Shun's comments and respect Malcom's too. However, I feel that when someone is getting ready to buy a quality macro lens it should also be fully functional with extension tubes and telextenders. The 105 VR macro lens is a G lens and it is my understanding that as a G lens it cannot accept Nikon extension tubes. I am not sure about the non Nikon brands. According to Nikon product literature it can accept Nikon teleconverters but with possible loss of AF. I wish the Nikon product literature could provide info on use of extension tubes with their macro lenses.

 

Joe Smith

I forgot to add that with the 105mm AF version of the lens, it does accept Nikon extension tubes and teleconverters, making it a more versatile macro lens in my opinion. Joe Smith

There's better ways to spend your money for a pure macro setup. A Tamron 90/2.8 or Nikkor 105/2.8AF-D with a macro flash setup is a much better way to spend the 105 VR's cost than the 105 VR, for pure macro use. Also these lenses can use extension tubes, allowing you to go past 1:1 macro. The VR can't use extension tubes and has issues on Nikon TC's (Loses AF).

 

The 105 VR however is a much better general-use lens than the 105 AF-D, due to VR and the much faster focusing with AF-S. And VR does have benefit up to 1:2 magnification. The Tamron comes out ahead as a portrait lens(Superb bokeh), but for other general use is much slower than the VR, and lacks VR as well.

 

If I was looking for a short tele prime for mixed uses including macro, you can't really go wrong with the VR. But if I already had a 70-200VR, I'd get a 105/2.8 AF-D or the Tamron 90.

I can understand that my initial statement might seem provocative. However, I always have the highest respect for the opinion of anyone who bases their assessments on actual use.

 

In the case of this lens, it is clear that some critics have either never used it, or cannot envisage the idea of using a macro lens hand held, and thus dismiss the 105VR out of hand.

 

I'd like to say to Bjorn that I've always found your comments incredibly useful and well reasoned, and your reputation with regard to Nikon gear in general, and macro lenses in particular, speaks for itself - I certainly have no intention of questioning your personal findings. However, my own experience of this lens has been unquestionably different and wholly positive. Sample variation may be a factor here, but whatever the reason, I can only say that the lens has been a great purchase for me, indeed it's central to the way I work. Would I buy one again? Unquestionably, yes. Is it the right macro lens for everyone, obviously not.

Well, if Bjorn's current comments on the 105mm AF-S VR macro is based on a sample that is out of spec, I would imagine that Bjorn would remove those comments and replace with updated ones, once his lens is re-calibrated.

As I've already stated, I don't think my 105 VR is that much different from what other people have got. I have used two different copies of the 105 VR, the review was based upon the first of them, and my personal sample clearly does not perform up to the standard set by the first sample. Both share the same brain-dead behaviour on a tripod, but this they have in common with their predecessor, the 105 AF Micro-Nikkor :(

 

I think one has to realise that the 105 VR shows signs of product variability, that is the only logical explanation to the various experiences people have communicated to me, plus my personal findings.

 

Whenever my experience with a lens changes, this is duly noted in the reviews. Also, I will have to do a considerable amount of reassessments in connection with the D3. My hunch is that many of the old-timers may not behave on the D3 like they did on silver-halide systems (geek parlance for film camera), but it remains to see what the differences if any are and in which direction they go.