105mm 2.8 Micro... VR or not?

Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by mrpink, Apr 25, 2010.

  1. mrpink

    mrpink No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,927
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Looking to expand my "creative abilities" lens wise. I have my Sigma 18-250mm 3.5-6.3 as a "walk around" lens. I have my 50mm 1.8 indoor portrait lens. Now I want to go macro. Wide angle will be later on....

    Looking around, I have found the Nikkor 105mm 2.8 Micro to be the "it" lens. My question is, does the VR option make it worth ~$300+ more? Are there any other differences in say image sharpness, build quality or AF IQ/speed? I would also be using this as a portrait lens along side the 50mm.

    My budget is not tight, but I am not independently wealthy either- best bang for the buck comes to mind....





    p!nK
     
  2. Phranquey

    Phranquey TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Dayton, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    To me, the VR is pretty much useless on this lens. Believe it or not, the closer you get to 1:1, the less effective the VR is. Why they did this, I have no idea, but you'd think that is where you'd want it most.
    As far as focus, almost all people use manual focus for macro, so AF speed isn't really a concern there (or for portraits).
    And with IQ, I'd put my older 105mm f/2.8 AF-D up against the new lens anytime, at half the price.
     
  3. rusty9

    rusty9 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Madison, MS
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    a small gorilla pod would probably be better than ~$300 for the VR function
     
  4. ghpham

    ghpham TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    For macro work, I think having a tripod would be the best bet for clear, sharp pictures. The VR feature is useless if you are going to use a tripod. Unless that is, you already have super duper steady hands.
     
  5. mrpink

    mrpink No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,927
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    forgot to mention in my original post, I have a great, very sturdy tripod and head setup.

    I am thinking the VR is not needed, even if I use it for portrait. I have a decent lighting setup so slow shutter speeds are not going to be a factor (nothing sub 1/125s)

    Do they still make the non-vr version? if not, is there anything I should look for, or watch out for in a used copy?

    thanks for the input on this.




    p!nK
     
  6. Phranquey

    Phranquey TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Dayton, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I don't think so.


    Nothing out of the ordinary when shopping for a lens. Make sure it's clean and works properly...
     
  7. D-B-J

    D-B-J Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,027
    Likes Received:
    2,171
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    i bought a 105mm 2.8D, the "older" version of the lens, and i love it!! Here is a link to the review. Definately worth the $450 i paid for it.

    Nikon 105mm AF Micro
     
  8. mrpink

    mrpink No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,927
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    is the Sigma copy even something I should consider?




    p!nK
     
  9. lukedarma

    lukedarma TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Berkeley
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I don't think VR is worth $300 for a macro lens. VR won't prevent the shake caused by your camera if you're shooting macro (since subject to camera distance is too close).

    And I always use tripod for EVERY macro shot.
    That said, why not try the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro instead? See review at Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro Review | Tamron Lens Review - it's as sharp as the Nikkor 105mm, no VR, lighter body and cost much less than the Nikkor

    Another alternative would be the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro if you don't need a very close working distance on your subject - Review at Tamron SP AF 60mm f/2 Di II LD (IF) 1:1 Macro Review | Tamron Lens Review
     
  10. Phranquey

    Phranquey TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Dayton, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit

    I don't think I've ever heard anything bad about the Sigma, so that is a viable option, but I think I would still try to steer you towards the AF-D. One, I know the IQ that it is capable of, and I see good glass as much as an investment. You can pick up a VG copy of the AF-D for the price of the Sigma, and it will hold value much better in the long run.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

nikon 105mm micro vr the vr is useless

,

sigma 105mm f 2.8 micro vs nikon