Why did I wait so long to get the 105 VR?...

Very strange. I typed in their search window Nikkor 105 macro again (newest VR version of course) & I see it but says discontinued.
I'm sure it's a mistake.

RB

Thanks!

It only says its lens coat got discontinued by plugging in your search term.

Just type Nikon 105 Micro, you should be able to get hits.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/424744-USA/Nikon_2160_105mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

Legend Ron said:

Very strange. I typed in their search window Nikkor 105 macro again (newest VR version of course) & I see it but says discontinued.
I'm sure it's a mistake.

RB

Click to expand...

a

well, then get the Sigma 150EX a much better lens and there is also the Zeiss 100f2 if you can accept MF.

Nice photo's. And, don't get me wrong I'm not here to belittle your purchase. Everyone knows it's a great lens.

However, there are tons of cheaper alternatives.

Personally, I don't understand the justification for the $900 price tag.

I have some great macro lenses. None over $400. At $900 I'm going to start looking at the Nikon 200mm f4 (which is now upwards of $1600...ahhh what happened? It used to be about $1200).

Tokina 100mm f2.8 ($400) taken by my wife with window light:



Tokina/Vivitar 90mm f2.5 (used $300 ~ $400 though I bought mine really cheap a few years back):



I will stick with the cheap macro lenses. Personally, I can't wait for the day that I get the Tokina 90 f2.5 on a full frame sensor. Was a really really nice lens on the F100 and is scary sharp still for digital.

Anyone out there using this lens on a D700 or D3?

great shots! looks to me like they are more due to your ability than the lens as usual, photographers take great photos, not cameras or lenses.

that said, it's pretty hard to go wrong with modern macros...they all appear to be excellent. in defense of the nikon (which i own ) it is less than $300 more expensive than the 3rd party alternatives here in canada and comes with much faster af-s focus and VR...worth it for me!

--
dave

even the cheap Tamron 90 is sharper than this 105f2.8Vr.

so, if your reason to get this lens is real macro or close up thing , where you do not usually use AF , the Tamron or Ziess or Sigma re better options.

I do consider the 105Vr as a good candidt street lens though.

pandalee said:

even the cheap Tamron 90 is sharper than this 105f2.8Vr.

so, if your reason to get this lens is real macro or close up thing , where you do not usually use AF , the Tamron or Ziess or Sigma re better options.

I do consider the 105Vr as a good candidt street lens though.

Click to expand...

Not sure the "street" lens is a valid comment.

And, I think your order is a bit off...... at least in terms of overall sharpness. Though I'd love for someone to do the research and prove me wrong.

Zeiss 100, Tamron 90,Tokina 100, Nikon 105 VR, Sigma 105.

That's a good order of things. Wanna mix things up throw the old Nikon 105 f2.8 in the mix. Not sure where that lens has gone in the whole macro lens topic. Because, technically speaking from what I've read the old Nikon 105 was sharper than the VR.

ianz28 said:

pandalee said:

even the cheap Tamron 90 is sharper than this 105f2.8Vr.

so, if your reason to get this lens is real macro or close up thing , where you do not usually use AF , the Tamron or Ziess or Sigma re better options.

I do consider the 105Vr as a good candidt street lens though.

Click to expand...

Not sure the "street" lens is a valid comment.

And, I think your order is a bit off...... at least in terms of overall sharpness. Though I'd love for someone to do the research and prove me wrong.

Zeiss 100, Tamron 90,Tokina 100, Nikon 105 VR, Sigma 105.

That's a good order of things. Wanna mix things up throw the old Nikon 105 f2.8 in the mix. Not sure where that lens has gone in the whole macro lens topic. Because, technically speaking from what I've read the old Nikon 105 was sharper than the VR.

Click to expand...

funny thing though.... The 20+ year old Tokina / Vivitar 90mm f2.5 beats them all in terms of sharpness and also has exceptional bokeh characteristics.

I honestly think the lens design was abandoned because it wouldn't support 1:1 macro ranges.

I'm waiting for the Zeiss 100 vs. Tokina 90mm shoutout.

ianz28 said:

And, I think your order is a bit off...... at least in terms of overall sharpness. Though I'd love for someone to do the research and prove me wrong.

Zeiss 100, Tamron 90,Tokina 100, Nikon 105 VR, Sigma 105.

Click to expand...

You guys make me laugh ...this obsession with 'sharpness' is redundant...as ALL macros today have good optical clarity...and the minescule differences between lenses is really a non-issue.

Here's my personal take on sharpness (as a concept) ...IF you're interested:
http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2268

and besides, with todays digital realm....the combination of mechanical optics AND pp USM, etc...all contribute to the overall end result...it's not just the lens that determines overall sharpness (ie: line edge definition)...optical clarity is the crucial facilitator here....see MY blog.

The 105VR takes great pictures....I wouldn't want these images to be any sharper, would you?

http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h100fd94c

http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h256b03ab

http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h17369cc3

http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h200870c2

http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro/h442ea0f#h442ea0f

http://kvincentphotography.ca/fooddrink/h242c1b1f#h242c1b1f

http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro/hb59447f#hb59447f

http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h3150f35#h3150f35

http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h836b7f5#h836b7f5

KEV

ianz28 said:

Zeiss 100, Tamron 90,Tokina 100, Nikon 105 VR, Sigma 105.

Click to expand...

this is wrong order.

the Zeiss is the sharpest , right then Tammy, I agree with this one too, but then the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon , I do not comment on the Tokina since I never used any Tokina in my life.

but if you see my point the VR and fast AFS AF , then the VR105f2.8 is a good lens for all around use or candid street work or even for flower portrait but not for real macro , since it is not that sharp , compared to the best of best macro lenses like Nikon 200f4 , Canon 100LIS , Sigma 150f2.8HSM , and of course the Zeiss 100f2.

And even the 105f2 DC is a much sharper than the 105VR lens as slrgear says , so, as I got the VR2 70-200f2.8 with canon 500D close up lens , I sold all my macro lenses except the Nikon 200f4 and Canon 100L......I wanted to keep my 105Vr too but as I saw the zoom out performed it , I could not justify keeping it.............

I kept my Canon 100LIS because it is not sharp but the IS in it was just insanely effective and it AF very fast, so I use it for street work but for strickt macro work , I use my Nikon 200f4 or Sigma 150HSM, which I sold recently and regeret.

I 'd get the Sigma 150 back but for now, the VR270-200+Canon 500D closeup lens does it for me.

But what you really care about is pure sheer sharpness or optical quality at bargain price , then go for the Sigma 70f2.8 or Tam 90 f2.8 , they are really sharp lens , the Sigma 70 is used as a reference lens by slrgear.com.

it is that sahrp , but I dont like it because it extends itself when it AF or focus close.

BTW, the Zeiss 100f2 is a great lens but it is not true macro ,and it is , for me , a portrait lens.

tokina 100mm is 540g, sigma is 457g they are lightweight feathers I suppose.

DeSono said:

... the 105 VR is a feather...

Click to expand...

It's just that I really like/need VR given my hand shaking. Let's me take sharp pictures with ss's as low as 1/13th second!

pandalee said:

then the VR105f2.8 is a good lens for all around use or candid street work or even for flower portrait but not for real macro

Click to expand...

All these images were taken with the 105VR, do you still think that it is not any good for real macro and/or closeup shots?

http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals

You really should re-assess your comments here

Coz, you are simply wrong...

KEV

This is the first review on their website about the 105 VR:

"All in all, this is a superb optic, particularly if you're a macro fanatic. (Many is the time we've lamented the lack of VR in our old 105mm f/2.8: Shooting bugs or fungi on the forest floor, there's rarely enough light to deliver sharp hand-held photos.) Highly recommended, if you're in the market for the ultimate macro lens for your Nikon SLR body!" From SLRGear.com

Glowing, I'd say...

Thanks for sharing. Certainly gives me a high bar to attempt to reach!

the Tokina that good ? almost rival the Zeiss?

if so interesting.

you are great and I respect what you do, I love your flower works.

my point was not saying the lens is bad(actually good) but what if all you or any one shooting with this lens is macro or close up , then you dont really need the aF or VR(use MF mostly for macro) , so there are many cheaper options with a bit better optics like the Tamron 90 or Sigma 70 and 150EX.

and if you need the fast AF and VR for low light mid tele use , then this one could be a really nice street lens for you.

to be very honest , I am not really into macro or close up so I just can't justify keeping this lens(since I now have the 105DC) , it is not as sharp as the 105f2DC or Zeiss 100f2 and the new 70-200f2.8VR2 is much more versatile than all of these.

but if I have deeper pocket , I will keep it for low light street work.

I believe that in order to determine the difference in IQ between the higher quality macros, you must want to spend a lot of time with resolution charts.

In my less controlled world of macro shooting, the Nikon 60, 105 and 200 are all superb. I've heard excellent things about the Zeiss 100/2 and have it in my long term purchasing plans (after the 85/2.8 PC-E), although only going to 1:2 makes it much more limited for my use than any of the Nikon macros. I also have the 55/2.8 AIS, but never use it - just not as convenient as the newer lenses.

It may also be heretical, but I find that AF is often useful in macro work. While I prefer to use a tripod and manual focus, when tracking insects it's not always practical. AF has saved me when awkwardly balanced to get the composition I want. VR has also helped at times. I wish the 200/4 focused as quickly as the 60 and 105. It would also be nice if it had VR.

I started with the 60, got the 105 for more working distance and then got the 200...I now wish someone would make a 300/4 macro (1:2 ok).

I think the 60 G is a superb lens but that focal length is not really suited for insects or anything really tiny.

but I agree the 60G , the 200f4 are both superb lenses and I want to see the 200f4 micro updated with aFS but not with the VR since it makes it even bigger than it is now.