Nikon Micro 105mm VR or other?
- Thread starter 355858
- Start date
- Messages
- 252
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you don;t need the VR, then the Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro is certainly worth considering, especially if any branches of Jessops near you have one in - due to their 'issues' with Sigma I got mine for just £249. It's hardly been off my camera since.
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's not an "issue" as such, I can't remember the exact details, but it's nothing to worry about, it's not a fault or anything like that. It's been discussed on TP before, I'm sure someone else will be able to fill in the blanks...
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Every f/2.8 macro lens gets people starting threads asking why it won't go down to f/2.8..
Its normal. They are only guaranteed f/2.8 when focused on infinity.:bang:
Its not a fault, an issue or a problem.
Its normal. They are only guaranteed f/2.8 when focused on infinity.:bang:
Its not a fault, an issue or a problem.
- Messages
- 4,613
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
focal length only effects the working distance (the distance between the lens to subject) the bigger the focal length the bigger the working distance , which helps for bugs etc macro (1:1) is the same at any focal length.
- Messages
- 837
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, many people do prefer the longer macro lenses.
- Messages
- 606
- Name
- James Cowell
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I bought a Sigma 105 macro from Mifsuds (@£280) and returned it the same day - personally I coundn't stand the AF>MF push/pull mechanism as it seemed really cheap and nasty. :thumbsdown: which has put me off Sigma lenses in general (the sigma was sharp though).
Ended up getting the Nikon 105 VR from LCE (£475 delivered) and it's in a different league build wise, and price wise!! :nuts:
Ended up getting the Nikon 105 VR from LCE (£475 delivered) and it's in a different league build wise, and price wise!! :nuts:
Sigma make some excellent lenses (the 105mm macro isn't one of them IMHO); don't let yourself be put off on that one lens.
For me, the Tamron 90mm is a lot nicer to use and produces lovely images; I've always wanted a Nikon 105mm (non-VR) however have never got round to it. I wouldn't use the VR version enough to warrant such an outlay.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agreed.
The Tokina 100mm AT-X is also a nice as well.
IMHO the Nikkor 105mm non VR isn't that amazing, the bokeh is very harsh due to only 7 blades. The Tammy and Tokky trounce it bokeh-wise.
The VR is a nice lens, but its huge and VR is pointless for macro.
Messiah Khan
Santa is your dad
- Messages
- 2,666
- Name
- Alasdair Fowler
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why do you say that? I've not got or used the 105mm VR, my weapon of choice is the Sigma 150mm. But as I shoot 100% of my macro shots handheld, I do wonder if the VR would be helpfull.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nikon do. In the manual that comes with the lens.
Paraphrasing it says something like VR is not effective at macro distances.
How do you expect VR to counteract even 1mm of shake - At 1:1 distance thats 50 to 100 pixels of blur...
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Apart from the pointless VR feature.. this lens is also stupidly oversized for a macro IMHO...
nice optics but its a honking great thing with a mental deranged OTT lens hood that you will need to use as the front element is very close to the front of the lens - its not recessed like most macros. Bit of a design fubar I reckon.
nice optics but its a honking great thing with a mental deranged OTT lens hood that you will need to use as the front element is very close to the front of the lens - its not recessed like most macros. Bit of a design fubar I reckon.
VR may be useful if you intend to use for non-macro work.
- Messages
- 2,321
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Apart from the pointless VR feature.. this lens is also stupidly oversized for a macro IMHO...
nice optics but its a honking great thing with a mental deranged OTT lens hood that you will need to use as the front element is very close to the front of the lens - its not recessed like most macros. Bit of a design fubar I reckon.
- Messages
- 252
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Think I was the last one the evening after trying the Sigma 105 prior to wandering back to Jessops to buy it the next morning.
- Messages
- 3,110
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I love my 105vr, although I have not used it as much as I want to, as Puddleduck said the vr does not work as well as you get nearer 1:1. just a couple of quick shots from when I first got my copy of the lens.
iso400 f11 1/10sec
iso 400 f11 1/30 sec
Both these shots were hand held.
iso400 f11 1/10sec
iso 400 f11 1/30 sec
Both these shots were hand held.
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that you will find that Pentax, Sony etc. users with in-body stabilisation disagree (at least for handheld).
Also Canon's press release on their new "hybrid" IS system hints at it's usage for macro.
1 of the potential problem areas with in-lens IS/VR is parking errors causing uneven sharpness across the frame & as we all know dof usually isn't very large in macro shots which is going to show that up pretty ruthlessly.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How can they dis-agree? They don't have VR...
They have in-body stabilsation which is totally different, and OT for this thread..
Actually when I had a Sony, even though I thought SSS was generally rubbish tbh, I did find it worked quite well for macro with a Tamron 90..
But this is VR which is very very different.
IMHO the biggest problem with handheld macro isn't horizontal and vertical movement, but movement forwards and backwards due to the tiny DOF at macro distances. Neither VR or in-body copes with movement on the z axis.
D
ditchdigger
Guest
i didnt know that or other things you said.
i had thought of the 105d as a lens for macro and portraits.ive been put of now.
what about the 60mm?
heres how to do it with a 70-300mm vr
its one hell of a lens whatever anyone says about it not being a pro lens
but how i wished for a macro this day
- Messages
- 2,414
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
designed to do the same job thoughHow can they dis-agree? They don't have VR...
They have in-body stabilsation which is totally different, and OT for this thread..
isn't that what rails are for ...?
- Messages
- 3,367
- Name
- Jonny
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not able to compare it with the Nikon but would have to agree with you about the tokina. I think it's a stonker of a macro. Sharpest lens I have by a smidge, nicely balanced on a D90 and has a nice working distance for bugs etc.
- Messages
- 1,214
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All prime true macro lenses (those that go to 1:1 unassisted) are going to be extremely sharp, they are designed to be that. I do not think you are going to see much sharpness difference between different macro lenses without sophisticated measuring equipment. It comes down to what you want to use the lens for that will influence your choice.
I have just done a quick experiment with my Tamron 90mm macro and found that the widest aperture is f/2.8 up to about 10m from the subject. It then stops down as you get closer until it is f/5.6 at 1:1.
No one would ever want to shoot at f5.6 at 1:1, you struggle for enough DOF at f/14!
I have just done a quick experiment with my Tamron 90mm macro and found that the widest aperture is f/2.8 up to about 10m from the subject. It then stops down as you get closer until it is f/5.6 at 1:1.
No one would ever want to shoot at f5.6 at 1:1, you struggle for enough DOF at f/14!