105 Macro f/2.8 AF-D versus AF-S VR 105

[niccoury]

I've played with the new VR macro (worked in a camera store) and I love how it

handles and the images from it, but I hear the old AF-D was a better lenses.

 

Though with the new one, it can also be used as a longer portrait lens.

 

Is the new one worth 400 USD more?

 

Thanks,

 

~ nic

[Jerry_]

The 'micro' with VR makes the camera-lens steady. If you have a bug or butterfly that is moving about, VR won't do a thing for you. Every micro-Nikkor is sharp: if you shoot female portraits with one, be prepared to find a method to 'soften' the image some. Either with a filter or in Photoshop.

 

 

 

$400 is a sum that only you can decide on.<div></div>

[joseph_smith3]

To me macro photography means shooting with a tripod so you can get a rock solid platform for those sharp images. When I use my macro lenses with AF, I turn off the AF 99% of the time and focus manually. How is the camera going to determine what you want in sharpest focus? And a macro lens with VR is a waste of money for my kind of macro shooting. Obviously there are other shooters who must disagree or Nikon never would have made the lens. To each there own.

 

Now the 70-200mm AF-S zoom with VR, that's a different story.

 

Joe Smith

 

Joe Smith

[klix]

<i>Though with the new one, it can also be used as a longer portrait lens. Is the new one worth 400 USD more? -- Nic</i>

<p><p>

I think you partially answered your own question. If you plan to use the lens for portraiture as well, then the new VR lens might be a better choice. Anecdotally, the 105mm/2.8 AFD Micro lens is not that great at larger apertures.

<p><p>

I say "partially answered" since if you want the lens for macro photography exclusively, then the answer may be subjective -- is the extra $400 worth it to you?

<p><p>

Personally, if this were my only macro, I'd get the new VR lens.

[klix]

BTW, not sure what kind of macro you wanted to shoot, but if you want to do flowers, and want something that could double for portraiture, then do consider the Nikon 60mm/2.8 micro. Here's a sample:

<p><p>

<img src="http://klix.smugmug.com/photos/143666823-L.jpg">

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I ended up buying a Lester A Dine Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro. Now there's a lens if your camera can take it. I was scared, but in this forum I find this lens has a lot of supporters. It's MF only, but I find that perfect as I can decide just exactly where I wish to place the focus.

 

This lens takes amazing shots & is super sharp.

 

Lil

[ilkka_nissila]

I have no doubt the newer lens is optically better than the 105 AF-D (both user reviews and what I've seen from it), which was never one of the better Micro Nikkors. The AF-S should help with focusing normal range subjects (which is very difficult with the AF-D) and maybe for some insect chase stuff also.

 

In addition to the price difference, there is a huge size and weight penalty for the VR. (As expected in a medium tele prime lens which ordinarily doesn't have extra groups to be wiggled about.)

[azlan.sharom]

Hi. A few months back I was faced with the same question. In the end, I picked up a second hand AFD 105 Micro Nikkor for around $400. Had fun taking pictures of mosquitoes and ants and the like... :-D

 

The sharpness of the pictures doesn't cease to amaze me.

 

The focussing of course is noisier than an AFS would be. It is somewhat slow and 'searches' quite a bit at times.

 

As others have pointed out though, when doing macro photography, I manual focus so that point is moot.

 

As Goldmember says "it's a keeper!"... and I think for most macro purposes, the savings over the 105VR makes it that much a sweeter deal.<div></div>

[warbler5]

I own both, and the VR version beats the AF-D, hands down....sharper, beautiful bokeh, and the VR, of course. I mainly used the 105 AF-D for flower close-ups, but I have began shooting everything with the 105 AF-S VR. The only downside is the weight of the lens.

[oskar_ojala]

The reviews I have seen indicate that the 105VR has better image quality in all areas compared to the older lens. The VR and AF-S can be handy in general shooting and portraiture, but probably not so in macro (unless you need to do hand-held macros). The drawback with the 105VR is the size, weight and price. OTOH, these are lenses than tend to keep their value.

[erik_loza]

If this new one were the same size and weight as the older one, I would have bought it six months ago. It is a very nice lens and though I could live without the VR and faster AF speed, that nine-bladed diaphragm is sweet.