Nikkor 105mm VR lens- works close up?

[Mike D]

Does anyone have any real experience with the Nikkor 105 VR macro

lens. From reading other threads, I got the impression that the VR is

ineffective at close range. I like chasing insects from flower to

flower and if the VR doesn't work at close range, the lens would not

be helpful for what I want to use it for.

[Jerry_]

VR will keep the lens steady in your hands; VR will not stop a flower blowing in 15 miles per hour of wind.

[klix]

I think what Micahel is saying is that there have been reports that the VR function does NOT work or is ineffective at closer distances. I think Ken Rockwell (if you can believe him) has posted this on his site.

 

IF true, this lens would seem kind of pointless, since most people would like want one for handheld macros at close range, where VR would certainly come in very handy.

 

KL

[michael_bradtke]

When I was at PMA and got to play with this lens for about 5 minutes the Nikon Rep told me that at Macro magnification Nikon claimed only one stop for the VR.I guess they found out that the VR was not as effective as at normal distances.

 

I kind of think that I any help is good help.

 

Michael

[lars]

Page 20 of the lens manual (downloadable from <a href="http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=18405&p_created=1144856541&p_sid=IWOXzq5i&p_accessibility=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MSZwX3Byb2RzPTgxLDgzLDI3NywyNzQsMzcwJnBfY2F0cz0yNDAsMTg4JnBfcHY9NS4zNzAmcF9jdj0yLjE4OCZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1">here</a>) says:

<P>

<B>The effects of vibration reduction</B>

<BR>When the subject is from infinity (�) to approx. 3m (9.8 ft.) away (at 1/30x reproduction ratio), pictures can be taken at shutter speeds approx. 4 stops* slower than is possible without using a VR2lens. As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x, the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease. (*Under Nikon measurement conditions. The effects of vibration reduction vary depending on individual and shooting conditions.)

[ShunCheung]

<I>pictures can be taken at shutter speeds approx. 4 stops* slower than is possible without using a VR2lens</I>

<P>

The underlying assumption is that, of course, the subject is completely still. In other words, this claim of 4-stop gain is essentially marketing nonsense.

[ky2]

Keep reading, Shun:<br><br>

<i>"As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x, the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease"</i><br><Br>Don't know about you, but I don't plant to use my Macro lens at 1/30x.

[ky2]

And ofcourse, I don't <b>plan</b> (dang notebook keyboard!) to use my macro lens at 1/30x.

[arnabdas]

Eh.. didn't know this one. Thanks guys. Looks like I saved some money there.

[anupam]

I wondered sometime ago why the heck Nikon was making a G macro lens that would simply close shop on their own extension tubes - and now this bit of info. There's definitely some weird planning going on up there at Nikon.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yes, they simply want everyone to buy the latest lenses and use it only with the latest bodies. This is their operating principle.

 

I usually use my 105 micro around 1:3-1:10 anyway, however, obviously I do it all from a tripod. VR would help with insect work. I mean, how often do you really take shots at 1:1 on a DX format DSLR? That's pretty close. I'd imagine most butterfly shots are from a further distance. I'd also imagine AF-S will be very useful.

 

The lens also has ED glass and I'd expect the optical quality to be improved over the current 105/2.8 AF-D. If this is the case, then the lens justifies itself irrespective of how well the VR works.

 

Ken Rockwell's complaint was about autofocus, not VR, which he said worked great.

[arnabdas]

I'm still not sure how this VR lens will help handheld insect shots, at least the kind I do.

 

For one thing -- many butterflies I shoot are an inch or less in length (most silvers, blues, hairstreaks, grass yellows, skippers are). That means shooting at .75x life size or more. I cannot really make a decisive comment before actually trying it out but the literature does not sound very promising on VR at such magnifications.

 

Besides, I will have to use a high shutter speed and/or use flash anyway because these creatures certainly won't be still -- so VR isn't really relevant there. And if they *are* still (for example the morning ones) then handheld shooting is a waste of opportunity anyway -- I'm far better off with a tripod.

 

As for AF -- it can be useful for certain types of handheld shooting for large butterflies, but focus can still be a bit off. In most cases I use MF, pre-set the magnification on lens and then approach the subject.

 

If Nikon aims to provide a macro and a mid-tele for available light candids/portraits, then this lens might make some sense. But at least on paper (and in theory) it appears almost overkill for the dedicated macro shooter. As for ED glass -- that helps with improving color accuracy/fringing, not sharpness. I cannot see any smallest hint of fringing with my Tamron 90/2.8 non-Di macro, 105/4 AIS micro, Tokina 100/2.8 Pro D macro, the 60/2.8 AF micro of 200/4 AF Micro, so I cannot see what difference results this one might provide. I'm hoping the 105/2.8 Kiron macro I got today will not show any fringing either.

 

I'd rather carry a lighter macro lens and use flash if I have to shoot handheld. The 105 VR will certainly be another great piece of optic, but not because of VR, AFS or ED glass. What I liked most is the 9-bladed rounded diaphragm.

[anupam]

<i>... 105/2.8 Kiron macro I got today ...</i>

<p>Arnab, I believe this lens is very similar to the Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 that I use, so I would love to hear your opinion of it, especially compared to your other lenses.

 

<p>-A

[arnabdas]

Anupam, I will.. let me get a D200 body first. My D70 and FM3A are back home 20,000 miles away :( ... I couldn't pass on this like-new sample so I bought it.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>For one thing -- many butterflies I shoot are an inch or less in length (most silvers, blues, hairstreaks, grass yellows, skippers are). That means shooting at .75x life size or more. I cannot really </i>

<p>

Do you always fill the frame with the butterfly? If it's an inch in length it's 0.67x lifesize if you fill the frame on the short dimension of the butterfly. I would think it's more common to have a bit of environment in these shots. So it could be 1:2 or 1:3. Well, you know better than I do. I'm just thinking that although it might not be that useful for a tight close-up it might be useful for a shot with some environment in it.

<p>

<i>

Besides, I will have to use a high shutter speed and/or use flash anyway because these creatures certainly won't be still -- so VR isn't really relevant there. And if they *are* still (for example the morning ones) then handheld shooting is a waste of opportunity anyway -- I'm far better off with a tripod.

</i><p>

Yes, you can use a tripod but the set-up time for the tripod might be enough for the animal to move away. With hand-holding you may be able to move the camera without causing plants to move, scaring the things away. It seems to happen to me quite often when I try, but that could be because of poor skill from me.

<p>

And while normally to get a sharp hand-held close-up you'd need to go somewhere like 1/500 s or faster (that's how it's with me) while the VR might let you do it at 1/100 s with some luck. The butterfly might be still enough for that amount of time.

<p>

<i>

As for AF -- it can be useful for certain types of handheld shooting for large butterflies, but focus can still be a bit off. In most cases I use MF, pre-set the magnification on lens and then approach the subject.

</i><p>

Yes, but with AF-S you have the option of starting focusing by pressing the AF-ON button with your thumb and then without fiddling with any switches you can fine-tune the focus on the subject so that you optimize the depth of field. Racking the macro lens manually can take several seconds while AF-S is typically much faster. Preset focusing is obviously a good idea but having more options can't hurt.

<p>

<i>

If Nikon aims to provide a macro and a mid-tele for available light candids/portraits, then this lens might make some sense. But at least on paper (and in theory) it appears almost overkill for the dedicated macro shooter. As for ED glass -- that helps with

improving color accuracy/fringing, not sharpness. I cannot see any smallest hint of fringing with my Tamron 90/2.8 non-Di macro, 105/4 AIS micro, Tokina 100/2.8 Pro D macro, the 60/2.8 AF micro of 200/4 AF Micro, so I cannot see what difference results this one might provide. I'm hoping the 105/2.8 Kiron macro I got today will not show any fringing either.

</i><p>

The D200 shows significant color fringing with almost every prime I have. On the other hand there is very little of this artifact in the 70-200 ED. The D200 is a whole different ball game in this respect from the D70 with which it was very difficult for me to see color fringing on the primes. I thought my lenses were perfect. Not so with the D200. Anyway, ED glass does improve sharpness because it reduces the divergence of the different wavelengths and thus all colors are focused nearly to the same spot. ED doesn't guarantee this but the recent high-end ED lenses (introduced within the past few years) have been better than many past ones in terms of color fringing.

<p>

<i>

I'd rather carry a lighter macro lens and use flash if I have to shoot handheld. The 105 VR will certainly be another great piece of optic, but not because of VR, AFS or ED glass. What I liked most is the 9-bladed rounded diaphragm.

</i>

<p>

I understand this. The 105 VR is a heavy beast, which is why I'm not inclined to buy it any time soon. Also stopped down the 105 Af-D works well with the D200. But my 60 mm is clearly sharper, and according to many reports so is the 200 mm f/4D AF Micro (which Nikon claimed to be its highest-resolving lens when it was introduced). The 105 may improve in the new, more complex design from its predecessor. Time will tell.

<p>

From early users, the 105 VR appears to have better bokeh than the 105 AF-D Micro, which should be a nice touch even for macro work. Frequently out-of-focus leaves show double boundaries with the 105 AF-D Micro.

<p>

I'm not really trying to sell this lens to you although my guess is that if you get it you'll love it. We need to see more user reports with the 105 VR and D200 or D2X to see how it turns out in the field. In particular, I am eager to read what John Shaw thinks about it.

<p>

You're probably right that given that you need a lot of depth of field for a really close-up butterfly shot so the effect of the VR at close distances may not be enough to get there, but I would think that the freedom of hand-holding and every little bit of help from the VR may allow you to get some shots which were more difficult before. Anyway, you're clearly very very good at what you do with the equipment you have, so there is no urgent need to upgrade.

 

[fraczekp]

60, 100 and 200 AF-D Nikkors are phenomenal. None really suffer from any chromatic aberrations (although there are some hints of those on the 60 and 100). The 200 is a phenomenal lens optically with better resolution @ infinity than the other 2 (although the differences are a matter of splititng hairs). None of the 3 have anything that can be called bokeh but the new one with it's updated design should help this problem. AF vs AF-S? Errr... How about MF? The only advantage of the new lens is the manual focus override instead of having to flip the fragile AF-MF ring switch that bothers the heck out of people. You don't need to flip any switches to fine tune.

 

Now let us dig deeperﾅ. Let's not forget that the minute one touches the barrel the minute the desired reproduction ratio is lost. So we are now adding on top of a tripod a nice focusing stage regardless of the focal lengths or focusing systems. After all you wouldnﾒt mount the focusing stage to the palm of your hand would you? Unless you have a 1/4 thread on your fingers then the answer is obvious.

 

So there it is again .... Close ups without tripod? Ha! Possible, most often not desired and not recommended no matter how big or small the object is. So VR will not substitute the tripod in this case showing yet again, that the VR was not really an addition for your close-up work.

[vivek iyer]

You all missed the point. Nikon is being innovative by introducing the first AF ED D VR G macro lens.

 

All this nit picking has to stop otherwise Canon will take more shares away from Nikon! That means nothing for any photographer, of course- that is only a minor detail.

[ilkka_nissila]

Piotr, I know personally two very good insect photographers who a lot of the time hand-held their macro lenses in available light. There are also scientists who need to get some shots of plant parts etc and do so without a tripod (because of all the other equipment they carry in the field). Again I'm pretty sure the VR will be appreciated, whether it's one or 4 stops.

 

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean that someone won't find it useful at times.

 

AF-S has a big advantage over regular AF in that it doesn't hunt since there is no slack in the focusing mechanism. It just stops when it finds focus. At least that's the case with my 70-200mm. All my regular AF lenses (11 of them) go back and forth several times before stopping. And yes, there is the manual focus override.

[fraczekp]

Ilkka, dude... Lay off the keyboard a little.... It's not the quantity of posts but the quality.

 

Nowhere in my posts did I mention that I don't like the idea -- it simply states that support for your lens no matter what you do is critical for many reasons WITH OR WITHOUT VR. Why do you insist on bashing others? Let me perhaps re-phrase it: Nothing substitutes good support (tripod, monopod, bean bag or even a stick....) for your equipment to get the top notch results. VR should not be viewed as the magical solution.

 

I suggest you pay attention how you respond to posts -- you have a tendency to formulate your posts with a certain degree of arrogance and personal attacks. Keep the topics informative, not personal. We are here to learn from each other and discuss certain topics, not to discuss our personal differences.

[arnabdas]

Piotr, let's please not start flaming each other -- in essence we all express our personal opinions here. A certain feature may be more useful to one than how much it is to others, but one has to try hands-on first to be sure. I have not tried hands-on, but I can pretty much guess how useful (rather, not) it might be for my type of shooting.

 

Personally I agree shooting macro from a tripod gets you the best results when practical. Handheld photography has lots more challenges than just eliminating vibration or freezing subject motion. There's this thing with finding the optimal focus plane and best composition which is still a hit-or-miss with me for handheld shots and I've been at it for almost 20 years.

 

But as Ilkka says, sometimes you have no choice but to shoot handheld, especially for scientific/documentary shots. I aim to do the fine-art type macro so it's less enticing for me.

[ilkka_nissila]

Piotr, in your previous post you laughed and ridiculed the idea of doing hand-held close-ups, suggesting that it's worthless for this application. Read it up, it's there. Also, you quite incorrectly claim that there is no CA in the micro nikkors. There is, once you use a high enough resolution camera to look at it. And the 105 mm AF-D is the least sharp of all the current Micro Nikkors, also on film.

 

I don't see arrogance in my previous post. If my post appears arrogant, perhaps you should read your own post. I am not always correct, but here I believe I am. In my post, I was trying to point out that there are many people, with different applications, with different needs from their equipment. You can laugh at hand-held macro all you like but different techniques are used by different people with different needs. You can tell a forest pathologist to carry a tripod and use it for all macro shots but it's quite possible that his scedule or other constraints doesn't allow it. Yet the shot must be taken. So any help is better than no help.

[ilkka_nissila]

Also, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that VR is a replacement for a tripod. The real question is: does VR in a micro nikkor allow any worthwhile shot in any situation to be taken successfully, which would not be successful without the VR? I believe the answer is yes, although I haven't used the lens yet. People may scoff at the fact that the VR doesn't work as well at close range, but there is an area in between 1:30 and 1:1 which would benefit significantly.

[vivek iyer]

<i>but there is an area in between 1:30 and 1:1 which would benefit significantly.</i>

<p>

Quite right, Ilkka. Most close-up photos are branded as "macros".

<p>

It is after all a micronikkor!

<p>

Regardless of the VR no VR on this new 105 lens, I think the good news is about the OOF rendition from it. <br>

All other micronikkors are too high in contrast and their bokeh renditions are less than desirable with the exception<br>

of few lighting/subject conditions.

[ky2]

Ilkka, so it's a portrait lens now? not a Macro lens?

 

It's definitely true that a lot of Macro shots are taken handheld (I do so myself) and this is one application that VR would prove worthy to invest in... but it feels like Nikon slapped VR on this thing just to distinguish it from the 105 Nikkor, and then slammed an $800 price tag, and some fine print to boot. Don't know, seems like a marketing ploy to me.

[malcolm_farrow]

Take a look at my earlier post: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00Fwj1

 

I bought this lens specifically for hand held butterfly and insect photography, but I can't

understand why everyone is so hooked up on whether it will offer the four stop

improvement in the close up range (say 1:6 to 1:3). Frankly, if the VR performance adds

ONE stop to my shutter speed range it will make a decisive difference to me and be worth

the money, two stops and I'll be in heaven. If I can set sharp, shake free results in the 1/60

second to 1/125 second range, it will mean I'll get many more usable shots than I do now

and I'll be able to work in a wider range of field conditions. Personally, I'd guess that

subject movement will probably be too much of a problem for really slow speeds to be

useful anyway, a lot of the time.

 

If you can hand hold a 105mm macro at these speeds, particularly on a DSLR where the

effective focal length is longer, and get reliably sharp results, you don't need this lens (I

just wish I could!). But in the real world, to get the most natural shots of day-flying

insects, (without relying completely on flash, at low ISO and with the lens stopped down)

this lens is a potential winner.

 

I haven't had the chance to do extensive testing yet and there aren't many butterflies

about in the UK right now. My initial tests were very positive and optically, I'd stick my

neck out and say that the lens is a superb performer, the best I've used in this focal length

- and I've tried a few over the years!

 

Just a final observation but there are some strange posts relating to this lens! Seems like a

lot of folk are determined to justify what they already own, rather than consider the

benefits of an innovative product such as this. VR on a macro may have a rather limited

range of applications, but I wouldn't dismiss it, just for that reason. Certainly, for the kind

of work I do, it's exactly what I need.

 

Best wishes

 

Malc