Nikon has their share of great lenses and the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR is one of the best. Certainly a worthwhile lens to have.
Go for it! thumb
thanks for responding...being that i don't have the greatest funds at the moment (in the middle of a move and stuff) is it better to have something like this awesome macro lens or a great wide angle??
i know both accomplish different things but if i had to choose based on the idea i can't have them both at once right now, what should i get?
... is it better to have something like this awesome macro lens or a great wide angle??
i know both accomplish different things but if i had to choose based on the idea i can't have them both at once right now, what should i get?
I can answer that question for myself, but you can, and must, answer that question for yourself.
I can answer that question for myself, but you can, and must, answer that question for yourself.
What do you want more and why?
I love the detail and closeups I can get (and the VR is great too) for the above mentioned lens. However, I saw a previous thread that reminded me how much the wide angle lens gives to the look of your subject. Makes it really interesting...Especially in journalism photography.
So do I want detail or cool effect? That is what I'm driving at. What does it mean for you, Ziggy?
The 105mm micro is a great lense for bees and dragonflys and anything else that notices your presense.
I use a 55mm and wish I could move up to the 105mm.
While I use wide angle lenses more, I too wanted a decent macro capability.
The wide views are fairly well covered with several different platforms:
On my Minolta Dimage A2 I use a wide-angle conversion lens to give me an equivalent to 22.5mm angle-of-view on a full-frame 35mm system. The quality is really quite nice for the total investment I have in it.
On my Canon XT I use a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC (not the macro). Someday, I may get one of the super-wide lenses, but for what I do now this lens is fairly nice.
On my Canon 1D MKII I use a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L which is a bit wider (on the MKII) and a bit sharper than the Sigma on the XT.
For macros I chose again two platforms and two solutions.
On the Minolta A2 I chose a close focus adapter lens.
Not like I can afford a lick of anything right now, but I am looking at the future and wondered if the 105 was a good buy. Any thoughts?
Well, I don't know if you want to shoot with a MF or AF lens, but I'm using a Micro Nikkor 105/4 MF lens on my D100 (no meter) these days and find it's a real joy to shoot with. @ ~$155, it fit my budget quite well.
You'll also hear many suggest that if you shoot micro on a tripod, MF is the way to go even if you're shooting with an AF lens... and I will also back up those words. So AF/MF shouldn't be an issue if you're using a tripod.
Even though I don't have many macro shots in this album, you can what the MF version can produce HERE.
Well, I don't know if you want to shoot with a MF or AF lens, but I'm using a Micro Nikkor 105/4 MF lens on my D100 (no meter) these days and find it's a real joy to shoot with. @ ~$155, it fit my budget quite well.
You'll also hear many suggest that if you shoot micro on a tripod, MF is the way to go even if you're shooting with an AF lens... and I will also back up those words. So AF/MF shouldn't be an issue if you're using a tripod.
Even though I don't have many macro shots in this album, you can what the MF version can produce HERE.
Let me know if you have any MF questions...
That infos spot on,My macro is m/f as well no need for a/f or metering.
I also have a 70-300mm sigma with the 200-300mm 1:2 macro (so called)
feature It wont focus properly in a/f on subjects with a shallow dof.
That infos spot on,My macro is m/f as well no need for a/f or metering.
I also have a 70-300mm sigma with the 200-300mm 1:2 macro (so called)
feature It wont focus properly in a/f on subjects with a shallow dof.
I don't shoot tripod and with shooting weddings (which I've only JUST started doing) AF is very necessary for me. As well as in my journalistic shoots.
Gosh. Just don't know what to do, and to be honest, I just shoot Nikkon, like Nikkon and can't afford to switch (ref: Ziggy's cool collection...)
I don't shoot tripod and with shooting weddings (which I've only JUST started doing) AF is very necessary for me. As well as in my journalistic shoots.
Ahhhhhhh... This makes a difference. Thanks for letting us know.
Gosh. Just don't know what to do, and to be honest, I just shoot Nikkon, like Nikkon and can't afford to switch (ref: Ziggy's cool collection...)
I think Nike put it best... "Just Do It". And to this effect, I've found that Nikkor is made for Nikon. So with this, you'll not be disappointed with any of the Nikkor lenses... as long as you're educated. Save what you need to and get what you want.
Let us know if you have any more questions... and good luck.
I don't shoot tripod and with shooting weddings (which I've only JUST started doing) AF is very necessary for me. As well as in my journalistic shoots.
Gosh. Just don't know what to do, and to be honest, I just shoot Nikkon, like Nikkon and can't afford to switch (ref: Ziggy's cool collection...)
What do you need a 105mm micro for then are you thinking potraits etc or just as a micro lens.
What do you have in your kit now because from your subjects,there are some more important lens to have.
These are all afforable and great lenses for your type of shooting.
50mm1.8
20mm 2.8
85mm 1.8 (this would be my choice over a 2.8 105 mm micro)
What do you need a 105mm micro for then are you thinking potraits etc or just as a micro lens.
What do you have in your kit now because from your subjects,there are some more important lens to have.
These are all afforable and great lenses for your type of shooting.
50mm1.8
20mm 2.8
85mm 1.8 (this would be my choice over a 2.8 105 mm micro)
my kit really isn't all that: D50
i have a 50mm prime
a 200mm that i'm not all that crazy about
the prime is my all around lens. my clients are happy with what it produces. i want the macro for more detail and the VR is a real selling point on that 105.mm. i've played with it at my local camera shop and loved it. just wanted some thoughts on it.
i have a 50mm prime
a 200mm that i'm not all that crazy about
the prime is my all around lens. my clients are happy with what it produces. i want the macro for more detail and the VR is a real selling point on that 105.mm. i've played with it at my local camera shop and loved it. just wanted some thoughts on it.
Well mildly put the 105 micro is favored by macro shooters and its a good general purpose lens takes nice portraits with fair bokeh.
I just think the faster 85mm 1.8 is a the god of portraits and an awesome wedding lens because of its faster speed,it may serve you more and its a lot cheaper.
Review on the 105 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105vr.htm
review on the 85mm 1.8] http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85AF.htm
about the 105 Macro
May I suggest going to a camera dealer that rents lenses for a weekend and if possible rent the 105 (Also a great portrait lens) and a wide angle in the 20mm-28mm focal length go out and use both at your next wedding and/or journalism assignment--look at the
results decide which lens answers your "which lens to buy next" keeping in mind the wide angle can produce distortion you'll either like or dislike on the edges of the photo(s)
I love the Nikon Primes, personally
The 85 is just my favorite lens period.
If your 50 is the 1.4 then it is one of the best lenses Nikon ever made IMHO.
I would advise you not to over lens - I started with a D70 and I ended up being a bit silly, having things like the 85mm 1.4 lens on a camera body that really could not do it justice (my excuse was it worked just fine on my F5...) So keep working those weddings ,wait for Nikon to release the D300 (or the D3) and then upgrade those lenses too..
Comments
Nikon has their share of great lenses and the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR is one of the best. Certainly a worthwhile lens to have.
Go for it!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
thanks for responding...being that i don't have the greatest funds at the moment (in the middle of a move and stuff) is it better to have something like this awesome macro lens or a great wide angle??
i know both accomplish different things but if i had to choose based on the idea i can't have them both at once right now, what should i get?
I can answer that question for myself, but you can, and must, answer that question for yourself.
What do you want more and why?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I love the detail and closeups I can get (and the VR is great too) for the above mentioned lens. However, I saw a previous thread that reminded me how much the wide angle lens gives to the look of your subject. Makes it really interesting...Especially in journalism photography.
So do I want detail or cool effect? That is what I'm driving at. What does it mean for you, Ziggy?
I use a 55mm and wish I could move up to the 105mm.
Regards Dave.
http://DavidRodgers.naturescapes.net.
http://DavidRodgers.smugmug.com
While I use wide angle lenses more, I too wanted a decent macro capability.
The wide views are fairly well covered with several different platforms:
On my Minolta Dimage A2 I use a wide-angle conversion lens to give me an equivalent to 22.5mm angle-of-view on a full-frame 35mm system. The quality is really quite nice for the total investment I have in it.
On my Canon XT I use a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC (not the macro). Someday, I may get one of the super-wide lenses, but for what I do now this lens is fairly nice.
On my Canon 1D MKII I use a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L which is a bit wider (on the MKII) and a bit sharper than the Sigma on the XT.
For macros I chose again two platforms and two solutions.
On the Minolta A2 I chose a close focus adapter lens.
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=251473&postcount=34
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=31788
On the Canon XT I tested an older Vivitar telephoto with both the Minolta close=focus adapter and an extension tube:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=34881
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
You'll also hear many suggest that if you shoot micro on a tripod, MF is the way to go even if you're shooting with an AF lens... and I will also back up those words. So AF/MF shouldn't be an issue if you're using a tripod.
Even though I don't have many macro shots in this album, you can what the MF version can produce HERE.
Let me know if you have any MF questions...
That infos spot on,My macro is m/f as well no need for a/f or metering.
I also have a 70-300mm sigma with the 200-300mm 1:2 macro (so called)
feature It wont focus properly in a/f on subjects with a shallow dof.
Regards Dave.
http://DavidRodgers.naturescapes.net.
http://DavidRodgers.smugmug.com
I don't shoot tripod and with shooting weddings (which I've only JUST started doing) AF is very necessary for me. As well as in my journalistic shoots.
Gosh. Just don't know what to do, and to be honest, I just shoot Nikkon, like Nikkon and can't afford to switch (ref: Ziggy's cool collection...)
I think Nike put it best... "Just Do It". And to this effect, I've found that Nikkor is made for Nikon. So with this, you'll not be disappointed with any of the Nikkor lenses... as long as you're educated. Save what you need to and get what you want.
Let us know if you have any more questions... and good luck.
What do you need a 105mm micro for then are you thinking potraits etc or just as a micro lens.
What do you have in your kit now because from your subjects,there are some more important lens to have.
These are all afforable and great lenses for your type of shooting.
50mm1.8
20mm 2.8
85mm 1.8 (this would be my choice over a 2.8 105 mm micro)
Regards Dave.
http://DavidRodgers.naturescapes.net.
http://DavidRodgers.smugmug.com
my kit really isn't all that: D50
i have a 50mm prime
a 200mm that i'm not all that crazy about
the prime is my all around lens. my clients are happy with what it produces. i want the macro for more detail and the VR is a real selling point on that 105.mm. i've played with it at my local camera shop and loved it. just wanted some thoughts on it.
Well mildly put the 105 micro is favored by macro shooters and its a good general purpose lens takes nice portraits with fair bokeh.
I just think the faster 85mm 1.8 is a the god of portraits and an awesome wedding lens because of its faster speed,it may serve you more and its a lot cheaper.
Review on the 105
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105vr.htm
review on the 85mm 1.8]
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85AF.htm
Regards Dave.
http://DavidRodgers.naturescapes.net.
http://DavidRodgers.smugmug.com
May I suggest going to a camera dealer that rents lenses for a weekend and if possible rent the 105 (Also a great portrait lens) and a wide angle in the 20mm-28mm focal length go out and use both at your next wedding and/or journalism assignment--look at the
results decide which lens answers your "which lens to buy next" keeping in mind the wide angle can produce distortion you'll either like or dislike on the edges of the photo(s)
The 85 is just my favorite lens period.
If your 50 is the 1.4 then it is one of the best lenses Nikon ever made IMHO.
I would advise you not to over lens - I started with a D70 and I ended up being a bit silly, having things like the 85mm 1.4 lens on a camera body that really could not do it justice (my excuse was it worked just fine on my F5...) So keep working those weddings ,wait for Nikon to release the D300 (or the D3) and then upgrade those lenses too..