I ordered the 85 f3.5. I thought about some of the Tamron and Sigma lenses, but decided to stick with only Nikon. I really wanted the 105, but couldn't justify it. I think the 85 will be a good length though and I liked that it had VR over the 60 (which would have been way to close for me anyway for macro). I think it has had pretty good reviews, minus ken rockwell...but I would almost buy it to spite him. Now to save money for the Nikon 300 f4 :)

Right but there are aleady several other 105 lens threads with more post and samples besides the one you list. I closed that one several months ago because it had the least amount of post and, at the time, was right beside this 105 thread discussion:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2014

I'm talking about this thread.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1383

It's the second one when I Google it.

There usually are "official" threads for many lenses, I haven't been able to find the official one for the 105mm.

NSXType-R said:
Not sure where the original 105mm AF-S Macro thread went- I think Niko closed it.

I have no idea what "original 105" thread you are refering to. I was gone for several weeks and threads were still being closed while I was away, so don't blame me. Besides when threads are closed they still show up in forum searches so I'm willing to bet you didn't even search very hard did you?

MIke,

That is a nice example of the 105mm as a portrait lens, but I missed what body was used. Was it a DX or FX body?

Please post back when you get your website up and running. I would like to see what you have to say.

Regards

tcole1983 said:
Since the PM isn't working. Do you get pretty good results with this combo? Would the 2.0 TC work on it or do you lose too many stops? Vs the 18-200 at the range with the TC on does the 105 seem to be a better option?

I have used the 1.7 on it as well. You loose stops of light but the in focus plane shrinks a bit (or it seems that way - I'm sure someone on here can explain that better than me). I'm sure the 2x would work but you would probably have to stop it down to F8-11 to ensure to get things in focus. I don't know how to describe it, I found it to work differently than on my 70-200mm. The Macro must have something to do with it.

In practice and playing around, I found it to be an option (for what I'm not sure), but not a good one. If you are always on a tripod, you could get something to work I'm sure.

Not sure where the original 105mm AF-S Macro thread went- I think Niko closed it.

But here's a shot from a 105mm macro.

adamz said:
lauzobe - that's a good choice. n105vr is a terriffic lens. I love the bokeh, sharpness and speed of this lens. another benefit is. the fact that it works with teleconverters. ocassionally I couple it with TC17II to get a nice prime tele +/-180mm f4.0 on fx and +/-270mm f4.0 on dx. one more thing You had to know about this lens, although it's a prime it doesn't keep 2.8 on all distances, but that's a common factor with all macro lenses.

Since the PM isn't working. Do you get pretty good results with this combo? Would the 2.0 TC work on it or do you lose too many stops? Vs the 18-200 at the range with the TC on does the 105 seem to be a better option?

Hi lauzobe,

FWIW, I picked up a few coins while I was in school shooting pictures - that was high school in a rural setting a long, long time ago. It was a matter of keeping the camera with me and just shooting with an eye to what might be publishable (not artistic - there is a huge difference), e.g., the 4H photos for a weekly paper, and a few dailies. It was a few dollars for each, and I was paid by the folks who submitted to the papers, but I was the only one doing a lot of little gigs. It added up, and it honed skills.

With the blogging going on now and the need for graphics, I can imagine that it is usually done by the individuals, but a little professionalism and some strong imagery could go a long way. Depending upon where you are, you might get a small gig that could help you out.

My best,

Mike

Budget restrictions being what they are, I believe that I will go for the Tamron 90 f2.8 Di Sp macro and on the wide angle will probably go for the Tokina 11-16.

If I discover hidden coins under my bed, I will of course go for Nikkor 105 VR and 10-24 DX.

Hopefully I'll have both lens by year's end.

Thanks to all,

Your valuable knowledge, expertise and experience is highly appreciated.

Ah, yes I noted the minimum focusing distance.

?? I was sure the 105 had a much lower working distance than that? .

I think the working distance of the 60 mm micro is the lowerst at about 50mm both the tamron 90 and the tamron 60 F2.0( This is what I recommend you look into as well) have similar working distances of about 100mm I think the 105 is about 140mm or so.

NOTE: Minimum focusing distance has only a small relationship to working distance which is the distance between the front of the lense and the subject.

If you are happy with DX then seriously consider the Tamrom 60 F2.0 as an alternative to the nikon 85. the 60 F2 is a really nice portrait lens on DX

Drab said:
Don't ignore working distance.

That is something, the 105mm VR gives a working distance of 28cm vs 26cm for the 85mm. Not a huge difference, but for bugs it could matter.

adamz said:
skint, that's work excactly the same, but instead of changing the zoom You change the magnification, and yes the new aperture is showing in the camera window

po naszemu: jak sie przyblizysz do obiektu, to jak z metra miales f2.8, to z kilku cm bedziesz mial f4, mimo tego ze nic nie zmieniales w puszce i na wyswietlaczu pojawi ci sie nowa wartosc

Mam dużo do nauki, dziękuję za Twoją przyjaźń!

Don't ignore working distance.

I own a Tamron AF SP90 and it is so sharp that when I use it to shoot portraits of ladies, they always scold me when they see their photos as all their blemishes can be seen :-).

What I noticed with this lens is that at normal head shot distances, the aperture opens to around f/3 max and not f/2.8. From what I can make out from Jerl's post, I think this is due to the focal length being longer at this distance, and since the f-stop is equal to focal length divided by the effective diameter of the aperture, the f-stop number is larger since the numerator has become bigger.

The 85mm is a nice lens, and for actual macro work the difference between the 85mm VR and 105mm VR is minimal at the most. The 105mm VR is F4.8 max aperture at 1:1 vs F5 for the 85mm at 1:1, so when all is said and done the difference in shutter speed is basically non-existent. The 85mm F3.5G VR isn't as nice for portraits, but overall it is a nice sharp lens, for about half the price of the 105mm VR. Lets put it this way, I've had my 85mm macro for almost a year now and don't regret buying it all.

Oh yeah, the 105 is great, but I hear lots of good things too about the 85. If you want to stay with DX, that might be a better lens for you. Also, shooting indoor portraits, the 105 is maybe a bit tight. It depends on you, but I certainly like the fact that it's a fast short telephoto that focuses quickly. Right now I think it's the autofocus of the D40 that's holding back the lens, not the lens' fault that it sometimes hunts a bit. With enough light and contrast and not confusing it with a macro shot, it's bang on all the time. I would describe the AF as scary fast, even when my other fast lens is a 35mm 1.8, which in theory should be faster, but obviously it is not a pro grade lens.

This is my first pro grade lens, and although I don't have money to perpetuate NAS, it has certainly set the ball rolling.

It's a bit heavy, I haven't found a bag large enough to fit all my lenses with my body, and it's expensive- I'm still suffering from buyer's remorse.

But I'm enjoying it more the more I use it. And obviously, to know that it'll work with DX and FX is great peace of mind.

skint, that's work excactly the same, but instead of changing the zoom You change the magnification, and yes the new aperture is showing in the camera window

po naszemu: jak sie przyblizysz do obiektu, to jak z metra miales f2.8, to z kilku cm bedziesz mial f4, mimo tego ze nic nie zmieniales w puszce i na wyswietlaczu pojawi ci sie nowa wartosc

TaoTeJared said:The only other Macro I would suggest would be the Tokina 100mm F2.8.

This.

monty11 said:
He means that the closer you focus the smaller the aperture becomes.

Thanks all for trying to help me understand this concept. I must confess it is a little un-nerving to ask the question in public, but I'm hoping that there are others reading this that are thinking "I'm pleased he's asking that and not me". In spite of your very thorough explanation jerl, and reading and re-reading through it slowly, I'm still not sure I get it. (Very embarrassing, but I'll continue to publicly humiliate myself for the reason previously mentioned). What I think you're saying is that this is a "PERCEIVED" reduction in aperture? In other words the aperture reading on the camera doesn't actually change, if you are shooting in "A" with 2.8 set, this won't change regardless of the focusing distance, but the actual depth of field that you see in the shot will? I do understand the principle or effect of the relationship between depth of field and the respective distance from the camera and the various subjects in the shot. (Not sure if I've described that properly, hopefuly you understand what I mean). Adamz original comment that the aperture changed according to the focus distance threw me, because athough I've obviously noticed this when zooming in and out on a lens that doesn't have a constant aperture across it's focal length (my 70-300 f4.5-5.6 is a good example), where as you zoom from 70mm to 300, the aperture changes in the display of the camera (if you had it set to f4.5), I thought he was saying that the same phenomenon was visible when you adjusted focus with a macro lens? I thought "I've never noticed that"! You're right Mike, all of us understand different concepts of photography, and have had different experiences (not many as much as you! ;-), this is why this forum is so good, because we all genuinely want to help each other on our journey to taking that "perfect" shot. I'll re-read your post jerl, and try and get my head round your very good explanation. Sorry for hijacking this thread.

one more thing about macro lenses in general, there's one more difference between macro and regular lens not many ppl may know. it's the way macro lenses handle diffraction. on regular lenses once You cross f11 You will see that diffraction kicks in, on macro lenses the line is moved further, almost to the end of f scale.

I'm guessing you need the AFS?

One doesn't even know what tack sharp means until you use a Nikon Macro. I beleive the first words out of my mouth were "Dear God" when I got my 60mm and "Holly Shit" when the files loaded from my 105vr.

I have used the 85mm 3.5 and it is a great macro and tremendously sharp but I didn't like it for much else due to the max F3.5 and the 85mm just was an odd length. I use my 85mm 1.8 all the time but for macro and with the F3.5 it just never felt right. Being a DX as well doesn't fit into my plans to move to FX in the future. I believe it was intended more of a dedicated macro and have seen it packaged with allot of scientific and other business applications.

I agree with others, I have the older 60mm 2.8 AFD and used the AFS version (Didn't upgrade since I don't need the AFS). Both are amazing and are great lenses for DX. It is close to the 50mm but they are miles apart. Tack sharp and the bokeh is great. The close focus is great for portraits to fill the frame. They are so solidly built they will last a lifetime like Mike G has described.

If you are looking for a Macro and don't want to spend the $ for the 105vr I would go to the 60mm over the 85mm.

The only other Macro I would suggest would be the Tokina 100mm F2.8.

Hi lauzobe,

Thank you so much for your comments. The 105mm that I have is somewhere around 20 years old and doesn't have VR. The shot was taken a few months ago and was taken with a tripod. The lens is terrific. It's traveled to South America and Europe and still looks pretty new-ish. The 60mm is very good, too. I like it a lot, and would likely not have it, but for the slide copier. It does make a great portrait lens, but the 50mm 1.8 is a little be faster and lighter.

There are a ton of great folks here to get a lot of great information from - I learn from them every day. In this thread Adamz, Monty, and Jerl all pitched in to explain the relationship between proximity of a lens to subject and to maximum aperture, and how that changes with all lenses.

It's the same in all the threads. If there is an abundance of riches, the gold is here.

I do plan to have a site up - as soon as I get my current plate clean - to offer what 'insight' I have for beginning professionals and Photoshop post production, and that should be in March. Of course, it might be as small as a 25 words or less. ;-)

My best,

Mike

monty11 said:
He means that the closer you focus the smaller the aperture becomes.

thanks monty for clarifying this, couldn't found a better words to explain this. anyway I though it's an important thing to know, as I've seen many ppl surprised about that.