Looking to buy a nikon 105

[andy_pestana]

I am torn between buying the Nikon 105 2.5 AIS vs. the 105 Macro AF.

The price difference does not let me have both. I want to take pics

of small and large roses, wild flowers, hips of flowers and overall

leaf/foliage type shots. I am concerned that the AIS version will not

let me focus close enough or am I missing the boat and should only

worry about macro Photography when dealing with objects smaller than

a half dollar coin.

 

thanks, Andy

[craig_andrew_yuill]

I don't have either lens, but I have used two third-party 90mm macro lenses. They performed very well when focused on near objects (no surprise there). To my surprise I was also very satisfied with the images they could create when focused on distant objects. In fact, I think they may be the two sharpest 35mm lenses I ever used. The 105mm AF Micro Nikkor should be the same. The only reason why the 105mm f/2.5 might be better is because it has fewer lens elements and thus fewer flare-causing air/glass surfaces. Still, I'd opt for the Micro Nikkor.

[andy.kim]

I guess it depends on why your choosing between the 105mm f2.5 AIS and 105mm f2.8 AF Micro to start with.

 

If it's price, then I'd say the Micro lens for what you want to do...the 105mm f2.5 is very sharp, but I've found after using both that the Micro is sharper at distances of a few feet or less.

 

If you prefer a manual focus AIS lens for some reason, the 105mm f2.8 AIS Micro often comes well recommended...it reaches about 1:2 on it's own and a bit past 1:1 with a PN-11 extension tube. The extension tube gives you a tripod collar, which is unique for a 100mm range macro lens from any manufacturer as far as I know, but does prevent you from getting anywhere near infinity focus. This is generally a more expensive option than the 105mm f2.8 AF Micro.

[ShunCheung]

At one point I had the Nikon 105mm/f2.5 AI (not AI-S) and now I have the 105mm/f2.8 AF (non-D). If you are interested in macro work, just get the AF macro version, which also has the modern electronics to work with current AF bodies (but Andy hasn't mentioned which camera bodies he has). Why would you consider the non-macro, non-AF AI-S version?

[andy_pestana]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am looking at the 105mm range for portrait/landscape/flowers and maybe upclose macro work too. As I understand the 105 2.5 is very sharp even for manual focus. I shoot a N90s with SB28. Could I get away with using the manual focus 105 2.5 and an extension tube and be cheaper?

 

thanks again,

[drc]

Andy, the 105 2.5 is one of the best lenses that nikon ever made, and you can pick them up for a song. The micro 105 2.8 is a very great lens, only much more expensive and somewhat heavier. I have both and use the former when hiking and use it with tubes for closeups for flowers and so on. If money is an issue get the 2.5, it's a tough call.

[chuck_greene]

Andy,

 

Get the AF 105 micro, it's a superb lens, you won't be sorry. You will have the AF which can be handy for portraits, and you will have 1:1 capability built in. It is my most used lens.

[kuraoka]

I own the 105/2.5 AI, and while it is a terrific lens, my experience has been that it is lousy on tubes, terrible with diopters, and pretty awful with converters. If you're going to do close-up work, I'd echo the others in recommending the 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. A dirt-cheap alternative is the Cosina-built Vivitar/Promaster/Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 Macro, which goes to 1:2 (1:1 with the included adapter). Build quality feels worse than it is (mine has held up just fine), and optical quality is outstanding as-is, with tubes, and with the diopter; marginally adequate (but slow) with a converter.

[barry schmetter]

I have the 105 Micro AFD lens and highly recommend it. It sounds like you do want macro capability, which is nice for wildflowers, so the 105 Micro would probably be more useful. The lens is outstanding from 1:1 to infinity with very good sharpness to the corners at all apertures. The 105 makes a pretty good general purpose lens for landscapes and portraits, but you'd better have an AF camera, because the focus throw at non-macro distances is pretty short.

[mooseman]

I've been using the AF 105 2.8 Micro for over 7 years. For macro work with working distance 3' or less I almost always use manual focus because I may not be focusing on the center or now 1 of the F5 sensors. You often change plane of focus from dead center so messing with AF is a time killer or not useful. AF is geat when using the lens for non macro subjects. AF with infrared light on flash is great if shooting in very dark settings like a special party with low interior lights.

[timothy_breihan1]

A big difference in the two lenses has to do with the color rendition. I have found that the Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS has a slightly pastel cast to it, much like the 28/2.8 AIS, while the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 is slightly hotter in terms of color. There is also a slight differnce in the way the depth-of-field behaves between the two. In my experience, the 105/2.5 has a fairly short range in which objects are in sharp focus. In other words, within the range of distance that one would consider "in focus," there is a secondary range which is noticably sharper than rest. A Nikon veteran at a local camera store said he experienced the same thing and assumed that it was due to the specific optical formaula of that lens. The Micro-Nikkor, on the other hand, has a more conventional depth-of-field and is one of the sharpest lenses that I have ever seen. I would suggest that you try both out first, as you will find that there is more to these two lenses than their minimum focusing distance.

[tobias_mennle]

I have used this lens for almost ten years now, but I do not much now. The "Bokeh" for critical macro shots (Water reflexions, dewdrops) is abominable with the lens´seven bladed diaphragm. Using a 2x converter is no good, and at F 2.8 the lens is not at all a stunner in terms of brillance. NB. This lens is not bad, but as my photographic aims have changed, I have become disappointed.

[dan_smith]

If you plan on shooting close work get the macro. If you want one for portraits then get a 105 f/1.8.