How does af compare between 105 D and 105 G micro lenses?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I'm a very, very happy user with my new to me AF 105 D micro. I saved over $600 compared to the G lens but have wondered if the autofocus at close range is better with the G? At close distances with objects the size of a dime af is reasonably quick. Something smaller, such as the tip of a ballpoint pin and it hunts but eventually achieves focus but I can always swithch to mf. I'm wondering how that compares to a newer lens. I've been using it on my ancient D2x and it rocks!</p>

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>Autofocussing macro subjecs is a matter of luck with ANY lens and ANY camera. Serious macro photography never relies on AF, therefore better AF (in the macro range) is hardly to expect with the AF-S lens. The AF-S is a little more versatile in non macro applications due to its VR and a little faster autofocus. OTOH it is heavy and I doubt that I would carry it around as a general purpose short tele.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Manual focusing of macro subjects is very difficult on the AF 105/2.8D Micro. The focusing ring is just too fast. The user is effectively forced to stop down more than they'd like because of this, unless a focusing rail is used. The 105 VR has a better manual focusing ring. The D version also has too imprecise AF for portrait distance work leading to slight softness unless the lens is stopped down. The AF-S VR version has very accurate AF at portrait distances making it easy to achieve correctly focused images wide open.</p>

<p>I do not normally use AF for close-ups.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Macro focusing should be done by moving the entire camera and lens to or from the subject, not by twisting the MF ring or relying on AF. So who cares about the speed of AF or the feel of the MF ring? Focusing the lens changes the reproduction ratio, and in many cases you want a fixed RR. The only way to assure a fixed RR is to set the lens and then rack the entire camera in and out until focus is achieved.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>The Nikon manual for the 105G macro lens says that VR is not that effective at close distances. I cannot recall exactly what it says about AF, but it might say the same thing. You can download the manual and read it for yourself. I have the 105 D version and have no desire to get the 105 G version for macro purposes. For my macro work, I use manual focus 100% of the time. Joe Smith</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>I like the 105D version because it has the aperture ring allowing me to use my Nikon extension tubes. I also prefer the smaller size. I read the AF-S version is a tad sharper, I find the D version plenty sharp for my needs.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A focusing rail is useful for some situations but a lot of the time it's just extra load to carry in the field that doesn't help in any way. A focusing ring that works precisely is never a bad thing to have. </p>

[Albins images]

<p>Additional question: how does the G-lens behave on electronic extension rings (still non-Nikon, after 25 years!!!)? Is all information passed to/from the camera, is exposure and AF still good?</p>