Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro VR vs. Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC?

[jim_mohundro1]

<p>Note: I've asked this question on the Nikonians site and gotten good responses from 105mm VR Micro users, but none from one who's used the 105mm f/2 DC Nikkor lens. I hope someone here will have used the two and can provide a comparison or at least can share his or her experience with the f/2 DC lens.<br>

I'd like to supplement my 16-86 VR and 70-300 VR with a faster (either F/2 or f/2.8 short prime tele lens with or without VR) as a short, general-purpose tele lens for available light. Assuming that neither the DC capabilities of the F/2 nor the macro capabilites of the f/2.8 are deal points for me (both are great features but my focus, so to speak, is on a general purpose lens, and while either of these special features is nice to have, neither is essential to me to have), which is likely to be a better general-purpose short tele lens in terms of IQ and overall performance, i.e., relative freedom from CA and/or color fringing, etc?</p>

[robertbody]

<p>I think you are asking about the non-portrait photo quality of 1) a macro lens and 2) a portrait lens.<br>

105mm f/2 DC is a great portrait lens with defocus ability and is most likely optimized for 3ft-20ft performance. Under most circumstances it probably outperforms the 105mm f/2.8 (for portraits),<br>

105mm f/2.8 macro is optimized for macro behavior with a dual purpose of having VR, and it does well as a portrait lens as well.<br>

There are no other modern AF choices for 105mm prime. I believe many users of the 105mm f/2 DC use it as a portrait lens in studio, some might use it with available light outdoors but specifically for portraits.</p>

[anton_kudris]

<p>Agreed with Robert. I'm using DC version on FX and DX mostly for portraits since I don't think it's fast enough for low light photography<br>

I think you should also consider 85mm 1.4 cause it's faster and a little bit smaller than 105mm DC.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>I personally use a 105 VR on a D300 and a D40. It's a excellent lens with smooth bokeh, good color rendition, and ridiculous shrpness (very good wide open, easily beats the 50 f/1.8 at f/8). I'm not into macro stuff, but the lens is still great as an all purpose tele. The VR works well and helps a lot since the lens' FL is rather long: this made the lens far more usable for landheld shooting. The AF-S SWM is quiet, reasonably fast, and vibration free. The lens also have a rear rubber gasket instead of an aperture ring. For what I do, the lens' features made it a better choice than the AF-D lenses in question. Whether if it's the better choice for you is really up to you to decide. Visit a reputable camera store and test them out. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I have both the 105 DC and the 105 VR. At maximum aperture, at typical portrait distances, the latter has about 1 stop more vignetting (!) than the former, so the difference in speed is quite substantial from a practical use point of view. The 105 DC has lower contrast especially at wide apertures, which makes it ideally suited for available light photography of people in high-contrast low light. The 105 DC is extremely resistant to flare and ghosting which makes it well suited for urban landscapes at night. It renders skin and fabrics beautifully, with a freshness and purity that it's hard to find in other lenses. Basically it makes people look beautiful in pictures. On DX the 105 DC is a bit soft at wide apertures whereas on FX it's quite useable even wide open if you can nail the focus.</p>

<p>The 105 VR is a bit easier to focus, especially on a moving subject, and it's a versatile general purpose lens but I don't particularly like it. It's bigger and heavier than the 105 DC though 1 stop slower in the center, 2 stops in the corners. I think the VR allows some tricks to be done well, such as detail shots of people's features hand-held, but near 1:1 its performance is lacking critical sharpness and has considerable CA and other issues near the edge of the FX frame.</p>

<p>On the DX-format D200, I found the 105 DC not all that sharp until stopped down to f/3.5 (however in the range f/3.5-f/5.6 it is spectacular) and on my D200 there were some autofocus accuracy issues at the widest apertures. The 105 VR on the other hand is easy to focus (either automatically or manually) and the areas affected by the vignetting on FX are outside of the DX frame. Also, the color fringes at 1:1 were at the edge of the FX frame so probably you could get a bit better results on DX in that respect also, though it is still not as sharp at wide apertures as some other macro lenses at 1:1.</p>

<p>For a versatile medium tele on DX, I think the 105 VR is a better choice than the 105 DC which really needs the full frame to show its true colours. I know some people use the 105 DC on DX also, and I can see why, but at least based on my experiences it needs quite a bit of stopping down to perform well on the smaller format.</p>

<p>For people photography on FX, I by far prefer the image quality of the 105 DC though I do use the 105 VR occasionally also for this purpose largely thanks to its AF-S focusing. For tripod based close-up work on FX I use the 100mm ZF. The 105 VR lives in my lens collection only until the moment Nikon brings out an AF-S version of the 105/2, at which point I will sell the current 105 VR.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I have both and concur 100% with what Ilkka has written. We shoot with D300's and I have to stop down to f/4.0 for decent sharpness on the DC lens, but I love it none-the-less. I would say the VR is the better choice in an all-purpose prime, especially for available light shots when the available light isn't all that available!</p>

[John Di Leo]

<p>not to hijack the thread, but could you throw the 85/1.4 and the 85/1.8 into the OP question, same premises and understanding the differences of focal length?</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think both 85's are a bit sharper than the 105's. The 1.8 has the advantages of being probably ever so slightly sharper stopped down than the 1.4, however, the 1.8 has the tendency of flaring is some situations whereas the 1.4 (and the 105 DC) are very resistant to flare and ghosting. The 1.4 has smoother bokeh than the 1.8 and better construction quality as well. I switched from the 1.8 to the 1.4 mainly for the construction quality but feel that I got more than that in return; the 1.4 has very nice imaging characteristics. It's a top choice for photographing people in available light, for sure, though I guess I'd use it when sharpness is valued high and the 105 DC when I want low contrast and a good outline of the face without excessive sharpness in fine details of the skin. I have this feeling (without doing that the 105/2 actually has a bit better bokeh than the 85/1.4; however, the 85/1.4 is sharper and easier to focus at f/2 than the 105/2 at f/2 so the bokeh comes at a cost, as usual there is always a compromise involved. I think there is also a difference in the color rendering between the lenses but this is difficult to characterize without doing proper controlled tests. I think personally I'd say the 85/1.4 is the best lens of these four mentioned in terms of overall image quality; the 105 VR is a fine all-arounder but not particularly shiny in any area, the 85/1.8 is compact & excellent value while not having quite the construction quality or bokeh of the others mentioned in this thread, and finally the 105 DC gets the most "love" points from me while not being the sharpest wide open nor the easiest to focus; stopped down a bit it renders the most delightful images of people and handles difficult, contrasty lighting with ease. Focus tracking with the 105 DC doesn't work all that well with moving subjects (it's ok at f/4 but not at f/2) and this limits the application of this lens to action photography in low light.</p>

[stephen_fassman]

<p>Very Interesting Discussion: Theoretically, how would the 85/1.4 with 3 kenko extension tubes, compare as a Macro lens to the 105 VR?... in terms of practicality, repro ratio, IQ? As an all purpose lens, the 85/1.4 apparently has the 105VR beat in all categories. I'm looking to fill the FX gap betw the 24-70 and 180/2.8, and have an incredibly superb 120 Medical Nikkor (but that is purely an indoor/ studio lens in need of an AC wall outlet), so it can't automatically eliminate the 105 VR for its macro capability). I also have a 60/2.8 macro, but find the working distance too close, and it can't support the R1 Closeup system. Lots to think about. Thanks.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>Ilkka, how would you compare the 105/2.5 to the 105/DC? Do they give similar image quality?</p>