Reading mode: Light Dark

Why do people feel the 105 VR macro is not a good portrait lens?

Go to last post
I agree with you, Max. IMO, the 105 f/2.8 VR is not a top teir macro lens. My copy was just not as razor sharp and my other macro lenses and I sold it. My Sigma 150 f/2.8 is much better. I think the 60 f/2.8 G is much better. One day, I may buy a 200 f/4 Micro Nikkor and we'll see.

As a portrait lens, my 105 VR also didn't quite cut the mustard either. My old 105 f/2.5 is much superior in my eyes, but my favorite, even on my D700 is my trusty 85 f/1.4.

--
Cheers, Craig
 
lol, the cat seems to be having a blast. Nice example of bokeh if one knows what they are doing! I think though, I am going to sell my 105 VR and stick with my PB-4 bellows. I have yet to get a lens for the bellows- once I get that, I think I will have more control for macros (the 105 VR suffers too much from 'focus breathing'). For portraits I will use my 70-200 VRII and eventually get the 85/1.4

Thanks for sharing your pics Mikhail.

Cheers,
-------
Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net
 
As it is, the 105 VR is mainly engineered to be a macro lens. The close focusing mechanics take a LOT of engineering, and potentially sacrifice AF performance. They have AF limiter switches I believe to make that easier, but yeah try setting the lens accidentally at 1 ft, and try focusing on a portrait subject 10 ft away. Good luck.

If they REALLY wanted to make it a portrait lens, they would have taken the 105 f/2 DC, and added AF-S + VR. THAT would be an ultimate portrait lens.

SO it's not like the 105 VR is a terrible portrait lens, it does great portraits. It's just a double-duty lens, and is more engineered for macro than portraits...

=Matt=
--
http://matthewsaville.com/blog

'My first thought is always of light.' - Galen Rowell
 
Max Green said:
Leonard Shepherd said:
As a 105 VR and 105 DC user, able to get (though not every time) sharp 1:1 hand held with the VR here is my view.
The DC is the best portrait lens and the VR is the best macro lens :)

The VR is quite good, though not as outstanding as a specialist portrait lens, for portraits.
For macro there are those who do, and those who do not.

For those who do not do macro other than from a tripod AF and VR are best disabled. For those who do some macro hand held (usually to get shots where a tripod would be impracticable) AF and VR are a bonus.

I appreciate some want to stand in the way of progress for ever and still use extinction meters to assess exposure, but for those willing to embrace 21st century technology the VR is good for hand held macro.

For those who can afford only one 105 the VR is much better for portraits than the DC is for macro.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.> > >
Click to expand...
The 135 and 105 DC lenses are top tier portrait lenses. The Nikon 105 VR is NOT a top tier macro lens, no way, no how. There's a world of difference in the level of these lenses.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree, I use the 105DC for portraits and the 105VR for its intended purpose. I come from years of use of the Tamron 90mm F/2.8 inluding it in Pentax mount. I will always praise high the Tamron, but the Nikkor 105VR is the heck of an optical marvel and top tier lens from Nikon. I have used it every blue moon for a portrait here and there, then I have to deal with the consequences; but as a macro lens, it blows everything in its present class and focal length in my opinion and 3 years of use.
--
My Blog
http://www.alldigitalnikon.com
 
Guidenet said:
I agree with you, Max. IMO, the 105 f/2.8 VR is not a top teir macro lens. My copy was just not as razor sharp and my other macro lenses and I sold it. My Sigma 150 f/2.8 is much better. I think the 60 f/2.8 G is much better.
Click to expand...
Really? My 60mm (G) is not as sharp as my 105mm (VR), although my 60mm maybe has a slightly nicer character. Both are very sharp, IMO, and compare well to my 300mm f/4, etc. I don't think I have a bad 60mm, or a stellar 105mm, as my images seem similar to those on PhotoZone.

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
 
Paul.R.Lindqvist said:
GoldRingNikkor said:
You forgot to consider that there's an A/M - M switch on the lens.
Click to expand...
You forgot that MF action on the 105/2,8 VR leaves alot to be desired...

--
Regards
Paul L.
Click to expand...
In what way? It is very smooth and has long throw for very fine adjustments. Just what a good macro lens needs.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR
 
(1) based on some reviews, for example photozone dot de (who have little to no commercial ties), the 105mm 2.8 is nice but has slow AF (it is driven by the body). But the newer 105mm f2.8 VR has reasonaly fast AF (for a macro lens). Still this will probably feel too slow for most natural portraits i.e. where the subject is not made to stand or sit fairly still.

The only macro lens of this kind which has been reviewed to have fairly fast AF, is not a Nikon lens and therefore I won't mention the brand name on this Nikon forum.

(2) based on various sample shots the bokeh seems ok but not dreamy. Of course this may just be a function of the comparably small max aperture of f2.8 when a more typical portrait lens would be, say, an 85mm 1.4. (with the caveat that this lens is driven by the body, and therefore might see a more modern replacement at one point)
 
martinch said:
Guidenet said:
I agree with you, Max. IMO, the 105 f/2.8 VR is not a top teir macro lens. My copy was just not as razor sharp and my other macro lenses and I sold it. My Sigma 150 f/2.8 is much better. I think the 60 f/2.8 G is much better.
Click to expand...
Really? My 60mm (G) is not as sharp as my 105mm (VR), although my 60mm maybe has a slightly nicer character. Both are very sharp, IMO, and compare well to my 300mm f/4, etc. I don't think I have a bad 60mm, or a stellar 105mm, as my images seem similar to those on PhotoZone.
Click to expand...
Different people get different copies and see it differently. I bought it and just ddin't care for it as a macro lens. My Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO just stands out in comparison.

I've not yet owned the 60 f/2.8 G, but Bjørn Rørslett rates it a 5 on both FX and DX while he rates the 105 VR a 4.5 on DX and a 4 on FX.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

Thom Hogan likes the 105VR but says the Tamron 90 is slightly superior from an optical point of view.

http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

I think the 105 f/2.8 VR is a very fine lens. I just don't feel that it can hang with the best macro lenses out there. For a combo portrait, short tele, macro and having VR, it's probably the best all around choice. For macro use, I found I had to stop way down to get really sharp images corner to corner.

--
Cheers, Craig
 
IF you want a great portrait lens I wouldn't buy the 105 2.8 VR coz it's a macro lens - however, if you shoot macro then it's a decent lens for both 1:1 ratio and just close-up shots.

Here's a few recent examples I took with it.

Macro 1:1
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro/h1b2b16e8#h1b2b16e8
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro/h1b2b16e8#h1fd61070
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro/h1b2b16e8#h11bef2f5
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro/h1b2b16e8#hbd5b6a5

closeup
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h100fd94c
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h836b7f5
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h229d5eb1
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#hcec7da4

Regular Stll-life
http://kvincentphotography.ca/fooddrink/h242c1b1f#h242c1b1f
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h256b03ab
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h200870c2
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h15653068

The 105 2.8 VR offers good colour rendition and optical clarity...

AF is pretty much redundant for macro 1:1 work, so I don't use it for that purpose. It's extremely erratic at this range.

Selection point AF is OK/fine for regular still-life shots tho...as one can get a decent 'lock' quite easily.

The 105 2.8 VR overall performance is on a par with the 17-55 2.8 I find.

Hope this helps...

KEV
 
Af and VR working perfectly with this handheld shot.

I am a pro, who uses this lens and its a great lens

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top