105mm 2.8 Micro... VR or not?

[mrpink]

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

 

[Phranquey]

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.

 

[rusty9]

a small gorilla pod would probably be better than ~$300 for the VR function

 

[ghpham]

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.

 

[mrpink]

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

 

[Phranquey]

Do they still make the non-vr version?

I don't think so.

is there anything I should look for, or watch out for in a used copy?

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

 

[D-B-J]

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

 

[mrpink]

is the Sigma copy even something I should consider?




p!nK

 

[lukedarma]

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

 

[Phranquey]

is the Sigma copy even something I should consider?

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.