AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED

pixbyjohn

Has anyone here used this lens ?
Is it worth the money circa €799 in Ireland ?

pete4130

It's a fantastic lens. I've got one and its underused. It says it is f/2.8 and to a point it is (there are requirements for a lens to be said to be a 2.8 lens).

In practical terms this lens ISNT a 2.8 lens. The closer you focus, the more it stops down (to about f/4.2 if I remember correctly) which makes it tricky under low light/hand held (when you should be using a tripod anyway). It does have VR (which is useless for real macro work anyway). It is a great portrait lens and does take some amazing macro shots for sure.
It gets really close on a crop sensor camera too which is great.

I had the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro before hand and upgraded. The sigma DID stay at f/2.8 no matter how close you were focused to the subject. The downside was the barrel at the front extends and retracts as it focuses. It's also slower to focus and noisier. The image quality from the Sigma was really good too. I paid €225 for a used copy and it was prefect.

Barname

I have one and much like pete4130 I dont use it alot either

similar gripe re the '2.8' not holding in macro mode

I have some great 'portrait' shots using it with a D200 (DX sensor).... it has a nice DOF and allows you to steal nice shots without encroaching

CabanSail

I have recently bought this lens. Got it in Gibraltar for about €650

Have only used it a few times, most recently last Sunday with my new Ring Flash.

So far I really like it & am happy with the results.

This was one of the first shots taken with it.



Here's one from last Sunday ... without the Ring Flash which I am still getting to grips with.



Here's one with the Ring Flash fitted

pixbyjohn

CabanSail wrote: »

I have recently bought this lens. Got it in Gibraltar for about €650


So far I really like it & am happy with the results.

Really nice shots, thank you

eas

pete4130 wrote: »

I had the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro before hand and upgraded. The sigma DID stay at f/2.8 no matter how close you were focused to the subject. The downside was the barrel at the front extends and retracts as it focuses. It's also slower to focus and noisier. The image quality from the Sigma was really good too. I paid €225 for a used copy and it was prefect.

Pete, I think effective vs. actual aperture conditions are inherent in all macro lenses. The difference between the nikon & the sigma is that a nikon lens on a nikon camera is smart enough to tell you what effective aperture you're working at.

pete4130

I had both lenses at the same time and got faster shutter speeds with correct exposure from the Sigma at 2.8 whereas the Nikon would stop down and give me slower shutter speeds.

Nforce

If you don't mind having a fully manual lens have a look at the old Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro. I picked up an imaculate example for half the price of the newer Nikon 105mm.

Here's a shot I took...

pixbyjohn

Nforce wrote: »

If you don't mind having a fully manual lens have a look at the old Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro. I picked up an imaculate example for half the price of the newer Nikon 105mm.

Thanks for that