Nikkor 105mm prime vs. 70-200mm VRII Zoom

[acute]

<p >I have not seen any comparisons of the Nikkor 105mm 2.8 VR to the new Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR zoom. </p>

<p >Would the zoom outperform the prime at 105mm? Would it focus faster and be sharper? Otherwise, is it better at 105mm than the prime? Or for that matter: is it better at 85mm than the 85mm prime?</p>

[lex_laws]

<p>"This 105mm VR Micro is built as well as the $1,700 70-200mm VR, and except that this 105mm can't zoom, it does exactly what the 70-200mm VR does, but better." -Ken Rockwell. </p>

<p>Ken seems to dig it... very fast autofocus, sharp, etc. He just recommends against it for all day macro work. Check out his review.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You simply don't buy the 70-200/2.8 so that you can use it exclusively at 85mm or 105mm. Its main virtue is the flexibility you gain with variable focal length while still maintaining very pleasing results (sharpness, OoF rendering, etc). If you can imagine yourself being happy with a fixed focal length, and can't see yourself benefitting from the flexibility, then it's crazy to put the extra money into the zoom ... not to mention the extra size and weight.<br /><br />As for which is better? You don't mention what you plan to shoot, using which camera bodies, and under what circumstances. Real life practicalities should be hte primary consideration, not hairsplitting and pixel peeping. Primes and zooms are for different tasks.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>IMHO, No (simplified answer), not at 85mm and 105mm. If you shoot macro, don't expect a zoom with a close up lens or extension ring to out perform a macro lens. If you shoot portrait, the extra f1.x depth control and the simplfied back ground blur and flare characteristics (from lot less lens elements) are hard to beat. But then, a prime won't zoom, if you don't mind the extra weight and bulk.</p>

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

<p>http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/223-micro-nikkor-af-105mm-f28-d-review--lab-test-report<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/457-nikkor_afs_70200_28_ff</p>

[adam_kuan1]

<p>For non-macro work the 70-200mm VR2 is much better. The focusing speed is much faster on the zoom, in fact it is not even close.<br>

The only reasons to get macro lens are for the 1:1 magnification, ligther/smaller lens and cheaper price.</p>

 

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I've done rough tests on my 85 1.4 vs 105 2.8 at f2.8 and f4 and the 85 seems to have the edge (as may be expected as even at f2.8 it's closed down 2 full stops).<br>

I'd always tend to guess/assume that the primes will be better than the zooms, but these days that doesn't neccessarily seem true - I have the 24-70 and was quite a bit better than the 24 and 28mm Nikons I tried with it.<br>

My gut feeling is that the 70-200 VR2 is going to good enough that you'll notice very little difference between it and the primes, and so if the versatility is important to you I wouldn't lose any sleep over IQ, just go for it. The only reason I don't have one is that I have the 200 f2 and worry that if I had the 70-200 I'd use it in preference because of the versatility - and I just don't want to ever stop using the 200 f2 'cos it's so sweet!!!<br>

Steve</p>

 

[hans_janssen]

<p>at 105 the 105 is sharper and the AF is dead slow of 105(compared to the 70-200).</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The first thing I did with my 70-200VRII was to test focus accuracy and center sharpness, to check if all was right. I used my 105VR as the reference lens (my most used portrait lens -the zoom was bought as a possible substitute-).</p>

<p>After some shots with the 105VR+D700, I switched to the VRII zooming to get the same magnification. I did the very same shots to some software boxes, wide open and not sure if f5.6, same focus distance (maybe 6-9feet, I try to remember that it was the minimum to have f2.8 on the micro lens), tripod, cable release, etc. I repeated the test using AF, manual focus LiveView (with and w/o loupe) for several times.</p>

<p>Consistently, all the 70-200VRII pics <em>wide open</em> were <em>slightly</em> sharper. I mean slightly, just a little bit (but noticeable enough) sharper. I`d say not sharper enough to make this a shopping argument; anyway these are very different lenses. I cannot remember the difference at f5.6. I wonder if bokeh is slightly better on the 105VR (if so, not significantly to me).</p>

<p>Focus with the zoom was (is) dead on, and AF is very fast, amongst my fastest Nikkors (I didn`t make any testing about this topic).<br /> I`d say AF is better than on the 105VR because the micro lens, although very good, has its own "focusing personality" (the 105VR focus along an extremely wide range, and it asks for a little care or experience). The zoom looks to be <em>always</em> dead on under <em>any</em> circumstance.</p>

<p>As you can imagine, performance could change at a different focal, focus distance, aperture, etc. As Matt says, you should mention your needs if you ask for the best choice. I have seen good portraits at your portfolio; right now, I have been using the 70-200 for portraiture but I`m lately turning again over the 105VR because is way more confortable to use (lighter, smaller), and the minimum focus distance is a plus. The zoom is a HUGE lens.</p>

<p>KR`s first opinions about the 105VR were so bad, I believe based on this "focusing personality". I`m glad to see that he has substantially changed his point.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p> The 70-200mm has a tripod collar mount and the 105mm VR does not. That makes the 70-200mm VR far more useful to me even if you turn off VR when it is on a tripod. Joe Smith</p>