Nikkor 105mm micro VR vs. nikkor 60mm micro no VR

[Ricky Ortiz]

ok well i have both just recently picked up the older 105mm AF and i also have the 60mm both without VR i think VR is useless for macro shooting the 60mm is a awsome lens nothing bad can come from purchasing it but if you need that extra little reach the 105 is the way to go i might be selling my 60mm here pretty soon, oh and i'd try to find the older versions of both without VR cheaper and personaly i think the older 105 is just a tiny bit sharper

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

then should I try to get the older versions of all my lenses without VR so that I save some money?

 

[Ricky Ortiz]

no VR is great just not needed in my own opinion for macro purposes

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

Ok, so you're saying that the zooms should be VR though?

 

[Ricky Ortiz]

yup VR helps out alot in zoom lens's especially if just happen to forget your tri-pod

 

[Phranquey]

The 105mm f/2.8 VR is great if you are buying it for the purpose of portriat photography. I tried both the AF VR and non-VR, and I have to agree with a lot of online reviews that, at longer distances, the VR works great, but the closer you get to macro ratios, the less effective the VR becomes. This is counter to what I was hoping, as the shakes become more critical the closer you get to macro.
The 105mm f/2.8 AF non-VR is every bit as good, if not better, optically, and can be had for half the price.

 

[sabbath999]

My humble opinion is that Phranquey is dead on... the 105 NON-VR version is the way to go, half the money and as good (at least) optically.

It also doesn't have the focusing issues that the VR model has (it hunts like a big dog).

VR isn't particularly useful when shooting macros (but nice if you are using this for a portrait lens).

I have the 105 VR. On the good side, it is the sharpest lens that I own by far. Still, if I had to do it all over again I would have bought the 105 NON-VR used for half the money.