NIKON 105mm Micro


Status
Not open for further replies.

zone5

New Member
Feb 11, 2007
8
0
0
#1
Hi Guys, I am planning to get me a Nikon 105 micro but can't decide between AF-s 105mm f2.8 VR or AF-105mm f2.8 non-VR. I would appreciate if you share your experiences with these lenses.
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#2
Hi Guys, I am planning to get me a Nikon 105 micro but can't decide between AF-s 105mm f2.8 VR or AF-105mm f2.8 non-VR. I would appreciate if you share your experiences with these lenses.
get the new AFS VR... you pay more but you get IF, AFS, SWM. :thumbsup: but thats imho. :bsmilie:
 

scenar

New Member
Aug 23, 2005
1,246
0
0
#3
actually, u could get the tamron 90mm, for 1/2 the price of the non VR, the performance is 85-90% there... then the other $500 can spend on other lenses! 35f2 / 50f1.4 etc etc etc..haha!
 

westwest1

Deregistered
Feb 25, 2006
2,616
0
0
@ AMK
#6
actually, u could get the tamron 90mm, for 1/2 the price of the non VR, the performance is 85-90% there... then the other $500 can spend on other lenses! 35f2 / 50f1.4 etc etc etc..haha!
tamron...TS can afford nikkor one...cause its within his means...so lets help him decide VR or Non VR...

I say the VR version...got swm...got new nano coating...very nicely built...
 

ipin

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2005
5,387
0
0
#7
tamron...TS can afford nikkor one...cause its within his means...so lets help him decide VR or Non VR...

I say the VR version...got swm...got new nano coating...very nicely built...
Bro, you forgot to include Internal Focusing (IF)! ;p

"AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED, the world’s first macro lens equipped with Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) and Vibration Reduction (VR) systems. It offers a host of Nikon's advanced optical features and technologies such as Nano Crystal Coat, Extra Low Dispersion (ED) glass and Internal Focusing (IF) . The AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED is engineered for use with both Nikon DX format digital and 35mm film SLR cameras.

This lens has been developed to meet user demand for a 105mm macro lens equipped with SWM, IF and VR system.

The SWM ensures fast and quiet autofocusing and quick switching between autofocus and manual operation. The IF system also offers a non-rotating front lens element that facilitates the use of circular polarizing filters.

With the enhanced VR system (VRII), photographers can capture sharp images at shutter speeds approximately 4 stops* slower [at near infinity to 3m (1/30x reproduction ratio)] than would otherwise be possible. The negative effects of camera shake are greatly amplified in close-up photography and can affect image sharpness greatly. The incorporation of Nikon VR technology in a Micro-Nikkor lens expands versatility by, for the first time, providing the sharpness benefits of VR and improving hand-held close-up photography. What’s more, the VRII offers stable viewfinder image for easy frame composition even at high magnification shooting."

The above is from Nikon Singapore. ;p
:bsmilie: :bsmilie:
 

westwest1

Deregistered
Feb 25, 2006
2,616
0
0
@ AMK
#8
haha...i forgetten about that...

been eyeing on this lens for a while already...

But computer now more important...haha...PC show coming...hehehehe...
 

Lmodel

New Member
Jun 19, 2005
1,124
0
0
Jurong Island
#9
Price difference between the VR and non VR isnt a great deal. I'd say it is a better choice to buy the VR version if you are still considering now. Btw, if you are planning to do Marco, stick to the Nikon lens coz you may get a R1 or R1C1 kit to compliments your 105 f2.8 VR for Macro photography.

Cheers
 

Tetrode

New Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,374
0
0
Visit site
#10
Hi Guys, I am planning to get me a Nikon 105 micro but can't decide between AF-s 105mm f2.8 VR or AF-105mm f2.8 non-VR. I would appreciate if you share your experiences with these lenses.
The question should be - what kind of work are you planning on doing with it?

A used 105 AF-D or Tamron 90 might suit you and save you a considerable amount of money at the same time.

VR and AFS are not necessary for macro work. Nice to have (in some instances) but not necessary. Nothing a monopod or tripod will not solve. Also the 105 VR being a G lens is a hinderance for macro work esp when it comes to using a bellows. AF isn't even necessary.

If you want more of a portrait lens with the ability to do occasional Macro work? then the 105 VR. Otherwise, the Tamron 90 also fulfils these requirements admirably (except that it isn't a Nikkor) . The Tamron 90 will also allow you to use it reversed, with bellows and with Nikon extension rings (i.e. non-AF). i.e. a more versatile lens over the 105 VR.

I've also used the 105 AFD handheld b4 and it worked fine down to 1/30 on a wet and windy day in Hiroshima of all things (with lots of patience and controlled breathing). I was taking tulips at the atomic bomb memorial. But the rather harsh bokeh almost rules it out as a portrait lens.
 

zone5

New Member
Feb 11, 2007
8
0
0
#11
Yes, I 'm planning to do more portrait and occasional macro. Hi Tetrode, VR has a better bokeh than the AFD, thank you for this info . I am ain't rulling out the versatile Tamron, scenar. Now its between the Nikon 105 VR & Tamron 90 ::sweat: hehehe...
Thank you guys!!
 

Tetrode

New Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,374
0
0
Visit site
#12
A new Tamron 90 costs about $800 while a new 105VR AFS costs about $1250. But I'd rather buy used for either - this way you don't lose that much on resale (if any at all).

And the Tamron (having been around for years) will be easier to locate used - they go for around $450-500 (the resale value of the Tamron is pretty good and doesn't usually go any lower than this). So if you don't like it anymore - you'll be able to get most if not all of your investment back. The 105VR being new is still a bit of a dark horse - so it's resale value is still a big ?.

And If the VR or AFS goes kaput after the 1 yr warranty is up - you up for an expensive repair bill as only Nikon will be able to service it. While the Tamron has none of the 105VR's electronic gadgetry so repairs can be done by most 3rd party facilities.

It is not necessary to have VR for portraiture and for focal lengths in this range (85-105mm) esp if the lenses are not made huge in size due to the addition of gadetry like VR and AFS.

The shorter focal length of the Tamron also has the advantage over the 105VR esp on a dSLR and in a small studio setting - esp when studio space is limited. Anyway, 90mm is the "ideal" focal length for classical portraiture.

The Tamron 90 is revered for it's creamy bokeh and it is as sharp as a tack. So the 105VR has no advantage over the Tamron in these two areas.

The $450 difference (or more if you buy a used Tamron 90) in the two lenses can go towards buying other lenses(e.g. 50mm f1.4) or ancillary equipment.
 

shark

Senior Member
Sep 25, 2003
686
0
16
West
Visit site
#13
Hi Guys.

I read somewhere that during focusing, the Tamron lens will extend. I guess Nikon 105 VR is fix right?
 

Tetrode

New Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,374
0
0
Visit site
#14
This is what Bjorn Roslett has to say about the 105VR:

The 105 mm f/2.8 VR Micro looks nice on paper, but using it in practice tells another story. The lens barrel is now massive and you need a big hand to get a good grip on it. VR does work very well, but unless you use a tripod you end up with a lot of close-ups of just adequate, but not perfect, sharpness. VR shouldn't be used with the lens/camera on a tripod so there is yet another slider to set correctly and Murphy's Law dictates you'll forget this when shooting someting of critical importance or using slow shutter speeds.
Like the predecessor it uses the trick of shortening the focal length during focusing meaning that in a distance from slightly less than 40 cm to 31.4 cm (near limit), the magnification changes dramatically from 1:2 to 1:1. Fine if you hand-hold the lens, hopeless if the camera is on a tripod since you cannot adjust focus ever so slightly without altering the framing of the subject in a major way. This in fact was the very reason I dropped using my 105/2.8 AF and reverted to the manual f/2.8 and f/4 models instead.

Colours are rendered better than the old 105 AF and the bokeh is much better. The "nano" coating probably gives crisper images as well. However, the optimum aperture range is still f/5.6 to f/11, and the IF design gives a slight emphasis to reddish fringes in the foreground and the complementary greenish ones in the background of the focused zone. CA isn't very obvious. much less so than with the older AF version, but you can observe slight vestiges on the D2X.

AF with the TC14E is slow and slightly erratic, and with the TC17E just a bad joke. True, Nikon warns against AF with TCs and evidently for a good reason. You do get VR with the converters, CA isues are added, and sharpness declines a bit. But the lens will give greater than life-size images with the converters. In fact, as long as there is no "G" compatible extension ring in the Nikon product line, this is the only way of going beyond 1:1 with the AFS 105 VR lens (I'm not familiar with possible third-party offerings).

Is the 105VR Micro a good lens? Obviously a lot of engineering efforts have gone into the new design and for many this will be a dream lens. I'm lukewarm and have no immediate plans of purchasing one for myself, although my aim of owning each and every Micro-Nikkor conflicts a little with this decision.
 

zone5

New Member
Feb 11, 2007
8
0
0
#15
A new Tamron 90 costs about $800 while a new 105VR AFS costs about $1250. But I'd rather buy used for either - this way you don't lose that much on resale (if any at all).

And the Tamron (having been around for years) will be easier to locate used - they go for around $450-500 (the resale value of the Tamron is pretty good and doesn't usually go any lower than this). So if you don't like it anymore - you'll be able to get most if not all of your investment back. The 105VR being new is still a bit of a dark horse - so it's resale value is still a big ?.

And If the VR or AFS goes kaput after the 1 yr warranty is up - you up for an expensive repair bill as only Nikon will be able to service it. While the Tamron has none of the 105VR's electronic gadgetry so repairs can be done by most 3rd party facilities.

It is not necessary to have VR for portraiture and for focal lengths in this range (85-105mm) esp if the lenses are not made huge in size due to the addition of gadetry like VR and AFS.

The shorter focal length of the Tamron also has the advantage over the 105VR esp on a dSLR and in a small studio setting - esp when studio space is limited. Anyway, 90mm is the "ideal" focal length for classical portraiture.

The Tamron 90 is revered for it's creamy bokeh and it is as sharp as a tack. So the 105VR has no advantage over the Tamron in these two areas.

The $450 difference (or more if you buy a used Tamron 90) in the two lenses can go towards buying other lenses(e.g. 50mm f1.4) or ancillary equipment.
That a very sound advice Tetrode.:thumbsup: appreciate it
 

Tetrode

New Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,374
0
0
Visit site
#17
tamron is just about 550+ new if you do look at the nikon price list. ;)
thats only about 40+% of the VR
EVEN BETTER! :thumbsup:

Has the price gone down recently? It used to cost more - circa $800 back in 2000-2002.
 

zone5

New Member
Feb 11, 2007
8
0
0
#18
You are right. I will go for the lesser priced Tamron first. Use it and see if I need/miss the VR & SWM of NIKON. Should I get a protection filter for this TAMRON?
 

deadpixel

New Member
Apr 14, 2004
1,251
0
0
East
www.pbase.com
#20
You are right. I will go for the lesser priced Tamron first. Use it and see if I need/miss the VR & SWM of NIKON. Should I get a protection filter for this TAMRON?
If you're shooting lots of plants and insects? You'd better get one. ;)

_
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom