Nikon micro 105 G or D?

T

Thegreatroberto

Messages
612
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
No
Looking to get a Nikon 105 micro, but which one is the best.
Yes, I know one has VR and the other could use extension tubes ( is that right?)

But it's the optics I'm really interested in. Likely to buy S/H and the D's are around £150 less.
There are bound to be peps out there who have owned both, so interested is what you have to say.
 
Thegreatroberto said:
Looking to get a Nikon 105 micro, but which one is the best.
Yes, I know one has VR and the other could use extension tubes ( is that right?)

But it's the optics I'm really interested in. Likely to buy S/H and the D's are around £150 less.
There are bound to be peps out there who have owned both, so interested is what you have to say.
Click to expand...
I've used both, does that count?

You are correct about the use of tubes, also applies to bellows (does anyone still use these on DSLRs??).

The AFS has very fast AF as well as VR and also doubles as an excellent mid range tele.

In terms of which one is best, well optically I couldn't see any differences, I have heard some feel the older AFD has marginally better sharpness, but as I say to me there was no real difference. To me they are both very good, bit of a win/win really.
 
What body will it be used on? While MF only is fine for Macro, the 105mm length is useful for other things as well and AF is handy for them. If your body is lacking the AF motor, you'll need the AF-S version.
 
Nod said:
What body will it be used on? While MF only is fine for Macro, the 105mm length is useful for other things as well and AF is handy for them. If your body is lacking the AF motor, you'll need the AF-S version.
Click to expand...

My body is a D700. Other bodies in the family ( ie may want to use it) are a D80 and a D3200. And it's only the last body that needs the G to AF.
I like the D lenes, as they tend to be smaller, cheaper and less complex ( ie no motor to go wrong). But that counts for little if optically they are compromised.
And, what are these 105's like as a mid- portrait lens? Or do they only excel close in?
 
On a D700 (and other FF bodies), the 105mm length is great for portraits as long as you have room to step backwards a bit. Not so good on crop due to the extra apparent reach/narrower angle of view needing more space. Not used the older version so can't make a valid comparison.

I can point out that last time I was in the Devon Camera Centre in Exeter, they had an AF-S on their 2nd hand shelf at a decent price... Might still be there (but wouldn't be if I didn't already have one!)
 
I have used both lens on a range of bodies d3100, d300 and d700. Very little to choose between them. The AFS lens focuses faster and is more versatile as an all rounder. The VR make little real difference when used as a macro lens. The AFD lens does work really well with both extensions tubes and bellows (some people do still use them!) for greater than 1:1 macro. In a normal macro setting again there is very little to pick between them, the AFD lens is great quality, very sharp.
 
Nikon actually recommend that you turn VR off when using the lens for macro stuff, not that I have it turned on often anyway
 
Thanks for all this. I'm not seeing many telling me the G is an improvement on the D. Even the VR is questionable when using it as a macro. The ability to use tubes on the D is a small advantage, but I doubt I'd ever use them.
I may have the option to try both this morning (S/H).
 
The G does work with extension tubes as long as they're not Nikon's. It works perfectly with Kenko full auto tubes but beware of vignetting on FF cameras.
 
Right. Looked at both Nikon Micro 105's today.
The comparison was fairly basic. The G was massive compared to the D. The G was a whole lot heavier. Optically unable to tell any difference. Even the guy in the shop had heard that the D's were sharper. Opinion no real fact, he even admitted it. So, what's the difference for £150? Nothing that I could see. The G takes a 62mm filter, the D a 52mm. And yes the G has VR; so what. At macro I'm not sure I can see a need.
Bought the D.
So far, it's super pin sharp at macro (F/45) and just as sharp as a regular 105mm lens. So a good start. Not sure why Nikon would have updated the lens in 2005.
Interestingly lightroom thinks it's a Sigma Macro 105. Even when I select Nikon, lightroom only has the choice of a 105 G !!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top