Can you explain why the 105mm VR micro is "crippled"

[dan_k6]

I was reading through some posts on the new 105mm micro VR vs. the old 105mm

micro AF-D and the 60mm AF-D. I remember someone saying that the "new" lens was

a "crippled" macro lens. I believe he said that you could not use certain

attachments with this lens because it was a G lens. I just want to know if this

is true or not. I had been looking for a micro lens for some time but before I

put any money down I just wanted to clear some things up.

 

Is this new 105mm VR a fully functional macro lens? What I mean by that is can

you use all the usual macro accessories with this lens like extension tubes,

etc. In other words can you recreate those amazing pictures of the extreme

closeups of insects with this lens?

 

Also, being that I have a 70-200VR, I pretty much cover this range but the

70-200 is pretty big and it would be nice to shoot some portraits that are as

sharp and w/ as nice bokeh as the 70-200 in a smaller package. Why do some

users say this 105mm micro is "too sharp"? Don't we all want sharpness?

 

And if you've used this lens, is the bokeh really similar to the 70-200VR?

 

Thanks a lot,

Dan

[leicaglow]

I know one thing that concerns people is its lack of aperture control. I use my Micro Nikkors (non VR versions) a lot in manual mode to control focus and aperture, especially at close distances. I personally won't buy a Micro lens without that control.

[vivek iyer]

As the name says, it is a micronikkor. If you want "extreme" close-ups,

buy a bellows and a real macrolens or switch to Canon. They offer a superlative 1-5X macro lens.

[acbeddoe]

Personally, I find G lenses to be just fine.<p>

Non-G lenses have to have the aperture locked for D40/D70/D80 and probably others.<p>

I think 'crippled' is a little strong.

[dan_k6]

Vivek,

 

What is a real macro lens? Can you point me to a few models.

[leicaglow]

Vivek, what's wrong with Micro-Nikkors in general? I've got an older FD macro, and it wasn't all that much to talk about. I didn't think Canon's were any better than Nikon's. I've got a 5D, but never considered buying macro lenses for it because my Micro-Nikkors seem so good.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Knowing Vivek, he's probably referring to some of the lenses on this list:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

Many of which are frightfully obscure.

 

And yes, to my knowledge use of the new 105 VR on tubes or bellows is pretty much a non starter due to the lack of an aperture ring. It does make a nice 'all round' lens though, something to carry always if you're not in the habit of packing the 70-200 VR with you always.

[rjacksonphoto]

You still have full manual control with a G lens as long as it is on a camera equipped with a command dial, like all of the Nikon DSLR's.

[leicaglow]

... and you're not using a bellows.

[Jerry_]

If you shoot a middle-aged lady with a Nikon micro-Nikkor lens, be prepared to explain 'why' every detail (good and bad) shows in the print. Very good for insects and such, but for portraits.....?

 

 

 

The only downside to a VR micro lens is shooting critters, a steady lens does not keep the bug or butterfly 'steady,' so not much is gained over a non-VR micro-Nikkor lens.

[Ed_Ingold]

VR reduces the effect of camera shake, which is a significant advantage for casual use (not too close). Once again the mantra has surfaced that "VR doesn't stop subject motion". Well, VR doesn't exaggerate subject motion either, so how can it be a disadvantage. You need a faster shutter speed, else put the critters in a refrigerator until they slow down a bit (or hope for a chilly morning).

[walterh]

Daniel starting with this lens is a very expensive way to get into macro photography. I would suggest to start with a cheaper lens like one of the 90mm-105mm Sigmas Tamrons or Tokinas. None of their current macro lenses are bad most are optically excellent. I personally use the 90mm Tamron and like it a lot. The image quality is better than my Micro Nikkor 105mm f2.8 (AFD version not the newer VR version)which i sold to someone who prefered the better built quality. And by the way you need AF very rarely in macro shots if you need it at all. VR is of limited use in the macro range - however if you also use the lens for general shooting it can be a nice feature.

 

With a cheaper lens in use you will be able to experiment and practice your shooting technique for less money. Perhaps you can invest your money into flash with some reflectors or a tripod. Once you know excacly what you want to do and how to do this you may find out the new Nikkor is the "best" lens for you or perhaps it is one very cheap 55mm f3.5 that can be used on a macro stand with bellows. Unless you know the details very well any decent macro lens is as good as you need. :-P

 

By the way you may have fun reading some of the several hundred similar threads on photo.net

[peter_koralis]

Daniel, i think you will like this user report on the 105mm VR

 

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2008/02/nikkor-105mm-f28g-afs-vr.html

[dan_k6]

Peter,

 

Thanks for that link it was really informative and cleared a lot of my questions up.

[mawz]

The 105VR is very good for moderate close up work, and use as a general telephoto. Probably the ultimate lens for shooting at 1:4 to 1:2 magnification handheld without flash. However it's very weak as a dedicated macro lens due to the inability to use it with extension tubes or bellows for magnifications greater than 1:1 which cripples it in comparison to its cheaper brethren. And VR is useless at more than 2:1 magnification, while AF-S is useless for macro work in general (which is not AF-friendly).

 

Oh, and Vivek was referring to Canon's superlative 65mm f2.8 MP-E dedicated 1-5x magnification macro lens. There's nothing like it anywhere else.