AF-S micro Nikkor 105mm advice

hello. I am newer to DSLR photography. Bought a Nikon d5500 in July. Primarily just for fun, family, kids, pets, and life pictures.

My father in law is liquidating his "mint" lens collection and has offered this AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 lens with VR at a 30% family discount. He bought it for about $800 and believes he could probably sell it for that on open market. So in other words, I could get it for about $500.

I have experimented with it -- got some good honeybee photos. It does seem to hunt a lot but maybe that's due more to my own limited experience with it. My other concern is that it's quite heavy -- but perhaps that normal for a lens of this type or quality?

I do love getting flowers, insects and birds and hope to do more of that type of stuff (in addition to kids & pets). I had always envisioned having a macro type lens (or micro, sorry I'm new!) but I'm just not sure this is the one I should get.

I have a great 50mm 1:1.8 prime lens, and a decent 18-140mm kit lens. Does this deal for a micro (or is it macro?) lens seem like one you'd pursue? Thanks for the advice!

In Canada the lens sells new for $1200 (stupid low CND!)

Turn off AF for macro.

You need to stand quite far from the subject when taking a portrait. This is not a bad thing, but you may have a hard time with space using it indoors. 60mm is a more versatile focal length IMO.

If you buy the 105mm. You will not regret it. I have been using mine for 20 years. Fantastic for insects.

I would check e-bay, etc. for equivalent prices ....

kearly said:

hello. I am newer to DSLR photography. Bought a Nikon d5500 in July. Primarily just for fun, family, kids, pets, and life pictures.

My father in law is liquidating his "mint" lens collection and has offered this AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 lens with VR at a 30% family discount. He bought it for about $800 and believes he could probably sell it for that on open market. So in other words, I could get it for about $500.

Click to expand...

Check EBay or similar for prices. It depends to a degree on exchange rate but today in the UK I could buy a used one for £420, so $800 looks over priced. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Used-Niko...656576?hash=item281edf83c0:g:7XkAAOSwZVlXvLzJ

kearly said:

I have experimented with it -- got some good honeybee photos. It does seem to hunt a lot but maybe that's due more to my own limited experience with it.

Click to expand...

That's true for any macro lens when used in auto focus. The closer you are to your subject the more it extends to achieve focus (look at your 50/1.8 as you move from infinity to close). Macro lenses get very close so they extend a long way; if you lose focus it then tends to run all the way through its focus range.

When using it for macros and close-ups it's better to focus manually. That's partly to avoid hunting, partly because depth of field gets shallower as you get close and it's very easy for the AF point to be slightly off your critical point.

kearly said:

My other concern is that it's quite heavy -- but perhaps that normal for a lens of this type or quality?

Click to expand...

Pretty well. Nikkor lenses are about the same size and weight as comparable Canon lenses; Pentax are a bit smaller and lighter. But for high-quality fast prime lenses that's the way things are.

If that lens seems heavy try one of the top-quality long telephoto lenses.

kearly said:

I do love getting flowers, insects and birds and hope to do more of that type of stuff (in addition to kids & pets). I had always envisioned having a macro type lens (or micro, sorry I'm new!)

Click to expand...

In general photographic circles the term is macro. That means, strictly speaking, a lens that gives a full-size (1:1) image on the sensor, with a flat focus plane. Just about everyone uses that except Nikon, which calls its macro lenses "Micro Nikkor".

kearly said:

but I'm just not sure this is the one I should get.

Click to expand...

If you want to shoot true 1:1 macro or close to it it's probably the best you can do. Third party macro lenses like the Tamron 90/2.8 and Sigma 105/2.8 are bigger and heavier with comparable quality and a bit cheaper (but about the same price new as a good second hand Nikkor 105/2.8)/

You could get the smaller and lighter Micro Nikkor 40/2.8 or 60/2.8 but they put you a bit closer to the subject, which is often not very convenient.

kearly said:

I have a great 50mm 1:1.8 prime lens, and a decent 18-140mm kit lens. Does this deal for a macro lens seem like one you'd pursue?

Click to expand...

Me? Yes. You? Who knows.

I hate zoom lenses. I do own one (8-16 because I can't get an auto focus prime that wide) and it accounts for about 35% of my shooting, Another 35% is with my 35/2.8. Next is my 100/2.8 at about 20%, then 200/2.8 at about 5%, 70/2.4 at about 4% and 50/1.4 at about 1%.

kearly said:

I have experimented with it -- got some good honeybee photos. It does seem to hunt a lot but maybe that's due more to my own limited experience with it. My other concern is that it's quite heavy -- but perhaps that normal for a lens of this type or quality?

I do love getting flowers, insects and birds and hope to do more of that type of stuff (in addition to kids & pets). I had always envisioned having a macro type lens (or micro, sorry I'm new!) but I'm just not sure this is the one I should get.

Click to expand...

It's hard getting good macro photos without a camera support such as a tripod, as you'll likely need to stop down your lens a lot to get decent enough depth of field.

But using a standard size tripod - the kinds used while standing up - when photographing small objects close to the ground isn't practical. A short sturdy tripod might be useful, but I usually find myself flat on the ground with my camera pressed into the dirt when taking such photos.

Price: $800 is a tad high, but if you can get it for $500 that's definitely a good deal.

Usage: As a macro lens it is fantastic. There are a number of shorter macros available, but they require you to get even closer to the subject which can disturb the subject and cause your own shadow to enter the frame. The 105mm is a great focal length and at f/2.8 would also serve as a nice portrait lens.

Decision: It really comes down to your style of shooting. If you want to shoot macros, you need a macro lens, and this is a great one. If macros are only a tiny percentage of your shots and you want to focus more on family shots, then another lens may be more appropriate (although your kit lens covers that focal length very well). If it helps, most serious photographers (amateur's included) build up their 'kit', included several lenses, over time. This would certainly be a nice lens to have in the bag.

Mark S Abeln said:

It's hard getting good macro photos without a camera support such as a tripod, as you'll likely need to stop down your lens a lot to get decent enough depth of field.

But using a standard size tripod - the kinds used while standing up - when photographing small objects close to the ground isn't practical. A short sturdy tripod might be useful, but I usually find myself flat on the ground with my camera pressed into the dirt when taking such photos.

Click to expand...

Many tripods have telescopic legs that also open out so you can get the camera close to the ground. With its centre column up this tripod goes to about 1.6+m.

In fact, what limits how low it can go is the centre column hitting the ground; but it's reversible so the camera can hang underneath, virtually touching the ground. Live View is invaluable so low; so too is a remote release.







--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
[email protected]

Get it! It's a great focal length for portraits and for macro too.

Is it hunting for the focus when you're using it as a macro. I have the 60 and it does the same, for macro I turn AF off and manually focus.

It's a really good deal!

To the OP: I don't use nikon, but in general macro lenses have a larger focus range because they're designed to be able to focus closer than non-macro lenses. So it may seem to hunt more simply because there is a larger range of distances it can focus at. I'm not sure about that lens, but usually longer macro lenses will have a focus limiter so you can basically have the lens only use the macro ranges or non-macro ranges depending on how it's set, instead of the full range. But in general you don't want to use AF for macro, because the slightest change can drastically change your DoF. It's best to use a tripod and manually set focus.