Nikon 105mm VR

[Hacker]

Having seen Kendo's thread on his latest purchase I wanted to know of any others who have this lens and how they rate it, I'm seriously toying with getting one of these as I can imagine it would be very useful for weddings etc not just as a portrait/prime lens but for all those close up shots (rings, bridal preparations etc).

The Sigma 180mm is very, very good for insect and the like but a bit of a lump to carry round for the above work.

[Brains]

I own one and do like it for macro work. TBH I do not use it at weddings - preferring the 17-55 and 70-200. It may be a bit long for bridal prep work (?), but I suppose that depends on distance to subject and what you want to achieve with it. I use the 70-200 extensively now and get some really good candids with it (I see that you already have this lens). Great for isolating the subject and getting a great full frame shot....but you already know that!

The 105 is roughly the same size as the 17-55 and feels pretty much the same weight.

[chuckles]

It's a stonker! We've had one from about the time they came out and I've never been disappointed in it......

This thread I posted this morning (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=351503#post351503) .... all the pink gergeras and shot #5 we're taken with it yesterday - some handheld, some with a tripod. Incidentally, the others were taken with a Sigma 180mm Macro .... :thumbs:

VR is great but with macro you could really do with VR'ing the breeze! Subject movement is still a problem!

Marianne uses it at our weddings (inside mainly) for candids of the wedding guests whilst I'm doing more formal stuff like The Vows, Rings, Kiss etc,. Works a treat...... I can't praise it high enough, sits nicely alongside the 70-200mm VR.... (although Marianne finds this too heavy for her so the 105mm is perfect)

[Venomator]

Don't know about weddings 'n stuff like that but the 105 VR is a superb lens imgo ... :shrug: ... fast, quiet and sharp as your eye ... :suspect: ... shooting the breeze is always going to be problem in Macro but heyho no lens can cope with that on its own ... :D

If you want to try afore you buy you are welcome to use mine Colin ... ;)




:p

[kendo]

Just getting some of this afternoon's shots ready for posting.

Hacker, got mine from Kerso for £439.00 incl P&P. couldn't find it cheaper than that anywhere.

As Ven says, its fast and quiet.

[irw1]

We got one fairly recently, purchased mostly on the strength of some of the stunning images on here!:lol: Although I've not had time to take anything "post worthy" yet, ( because my wife keeps nicking it,:bang:) it really is a superb lens, as others have already said.:D

You won't be disappointed imo.:thumbs:

[Druid]

For what it's apparently designed to do, it's absolutely brilliant. Deadly sharp from say f4 to f8 in regular tele range (see e.g. the almost off-the-scale MTF50 test here (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_105_28vr/index.htm)) excellent macro capabilities (maybe a bit short of the 200/4 but you'd have to be really pushing it to see a difference), wonderful colour and contrast, very pretty out of focus areas, fairly resistant to flare and ghosting (and with a huge but very effective hood for zero flare)

As far as I can work out, it was designed as the perfect one-lens solution for a walk in the woods and similar kinds of short-tele nature/macro photography. The VR feature doesn't work at all for 1:1 macro, but it's not supposed to. If you stick it on a tripod and use MLU it's going to work just fine as a full-on macro lens. What the VR is there for is to support more general usage sans tripod, including moderate closeup work like chasing butterflies or taking flower photos someplace where a tripod would be inconvenient. I'm also told it works superbly with the Nikon macro flash R1C1 etc. Framing does change a bit as you focus, due to the IF design (I think) which is the one real fault I've found using it on a tripod and the place where a 70-180 micro (if you can find one) or one of the older micro-nikkors or adding a focussing rail would probably work rather better. It's also a G lens, so it's useless with Nikon extension tubes.

For sheer usability, versatility and clinical accuracy in the moderate tele range though, the 105 VR is very hard to beat. I find it works very well as a 2-lens general use kit with the 17-55, or as part of a three lens kit e.g. add say a 85/1.4 for shallow DoF or a 180/2.8 or maybe a 300/4 if you need extra reach

Having said that, for weddings, I'd go for the 105/2 DC or 135/2 DC. (Ffordes have a mint 105/2 DC going for £499 right now) The 105 VR is not what I'd call a 'romantic' lens. It's more suited to naturalists and forensic pathologists than wedding photographers I suspect. For 'romantic', I'd favour one of the DC lenses, or if you're very skilled the 85/1.4 (similar issues when stopped down, but you can mask them with clever DoF tricks). The extraordinary detail rendition and micro-contrast of the 105 VR will show every blotch and vein with perfect accuracy, the 'portrait' nikkors, if used artfully, will make them vanish.