Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Nuteshack, Jul 22, 2007.
As well as the Vibration Reduction (which is very nice) the VR lens is tested to be sharper. PhotoZone's tests show the VR lens as one of the sharpest lenses you can get.
Here's the charts. First the standard macro/non-VR (type D):
and then the newer VR style:
CA is recorded as a touch higher on the VR, but it's not even in the mid-range.
I really could not see a real world difference between the two but the VR does exhibit a nicer bokeh. This was a plus when using the VR as a portrait lens and background selection was not an option.
For hanheld close-up work the VR is a wonderful touch. For true macro work I didn't see it as a real benefit. That said, I'm not a real dedicated macro guy and my close-up fun is now handled with the 70-300 VR and a 58mm Canon 500D on an adaptor ring.
Hi Nute. Not as scientific as all that, just my observations FWIW, I've owned both. Both great lenses, extremely sharp, but the images from the VR have a little something extra that I prefer. Perhaps due to the new coating, but I don't know. Also, bokeh on the VR is a bit better. But what do I know?:tongue: Thinking of trading in the Tammy?
I don't own and nevery try the 105 but I do got a 105 VR with me. Well...speaking of bokeh (or maybe OFF background) this is what it can do.
And this is another shot and I just love the "blended" green background here.
View attachment 107392
You sure use that lens well, Airbiscuit. Those images are great!
thanks for the replies and all the handy info....Larry, i picked up a 105 non vr today and dang it's sharp,,,but i'm still somewhat addicted to the tammy...;-))
woa, nice pix Biscuit...;-)
What does the new 105 non vr do that your tammy dosent ? (except for build quality)
Im just curious, since the fl isnt that far apart.
well Paul, it focuses much faster hasa better build and does give u a little more seperation from your subject, of course. other than that all things are probably equal, cept the bokeh. i think the bokeh from the tammy is probably the best of the bunch though. but then again that's a subjective thing ....;-))
I had the 105mm F2.8 AFD Micro Nikkor. It was a real nice lens except the AF would hunt from time to time. Previous to that, I had the 105mm F2.8 AIS, which had more flare. I sold the 105mm AF to get the 105mm F2 DC which is better for all around use.
I then sold that to get the 85mm F1.8 which is more practical for weddings. That lens is a real nice suprise in quality and very easy to hand hold.
the optics are different. and another advantage of the new 105VR is that the magnification ratio is higher than the 1:1 that Nikon claims, it's actually been tested to be 1:0.7, which is greater than lifesize.
Not true. I think someone is confusing the DX 1.5x crop factor with magnification.
Both the AF 105/2.8 micro and AFS 105 VR micro will give magnifications up to 1:1. In other words, the lens is capable of projecting an image on film (or sensor) the same size as the actual object. Since the DX format is 1.5x (1:0.7x) smaller than 35mm film, the subject is cropped more tightly and fills the frame more, which makes it look like a greater enlargement. The greater apparent enlargement is the same regardless of which lens is used (that is also why telephotos seem longer on the DX format).
As for optical differences between these lenses, the older AF 105/2.8 micro has 9 elements in 8 groups. Focusing is achieved by extension with close range correction. The AF 105/2.8 VR micro has 14 elements in 12 groups with one ED element and one element with Nano-coating. Focusing is internal (IF) with close range correction.
As for optical performance, the VR version is slightly sharper as shown at photozone, but they can only test at non-macro distances. According to Bjorn Rorslett, the older non VR version is sharper at close range.
The non-VR lens has 7 straight sided aperture blades, so when stopped down any background specular highlights are polygons. The VR version has 9 rounded blades, so highlights appear rounder. The VR version also has smoother background rendition, so overall it has better bokeh.
The VR version is a "G" lens so cannot be used with Nikon extension tubes. I think some third party tubes will work but none are as well made as the Nikon tubes, and none have a built-in tripod mount like the excellent PN-11. The older 105/2.8 micro works perfectly with Nikon tubes so is a good choice if magnifications greater than 1:1 are required. The only way to increase magnification with the 105VR micro is to use closeup filters like the 6T filter. However, the 6T is discontinued, shortens the working distance and only gives a modest increase in magnification. Nikon AFS teleconverters can also be used to increase magnification, but AF performance and sharpness both suffer.
If you want a medium telephoto with good imaging characteristics and VR for general photography, portraiture, and also macro, then the 105 VR micro may be the best choice. However, if you want a lens primarily for medium-high magnification work, which also serves well as a medium telephoto, consider the older AF 105/2.8 micro.
rvink, you sure about that? the magnification ratio should not be impacted by the sensor size as i understand it.
Yes that's exactly right, and it was what I was trying to say ... not too successfully it seems!
Imagine this: you have a bug and draw a 24x36mm frame around it. That is a 1:1 magnification image on film. Now draw a 16x24mm frame around it. That is 1:1 magnification on DX format. The magnification has not changed, but the bug is cropped much more tightly. Scale that up to a full-screen image, and the bug taken on the DX format looks bigger, even though the magnification (on the film/sensor) is the same.
I have owned both. I gave away the AFD, if that's any indication of which lens I prefer.
Yes that is true, but what if you take a picture of a small ruler as a reference, from that shouldn't you be able to determine the true magnification ratio? Some lenses seem to have either less or greater max magnification ratio than what the manufacterer claims, according to review sites.
Taking a picture of a ruler would work. I doubt that the magnification would vary much from what the manufacturer claims, macro lenses are generally made to very exacting standards. Consumer zooms are another story...
I have to say that the VR is nice though. I don't currently have this lens, but I do want to pick one up again soon. The VR allows for interesting shots that you might not be able to do with a macro otherwise.
This statue is actually only 5" high. I was on my knees looking up at an angle. C&C welcomed.
As usual, my DoF is too short, but I am working on it! (Actually, I think I will add this line to my signature. :smile: )
I owned a tamron sp90 but was not very satisfied with the build and returned it for something else. recently acquired a 105vr and it has fast become my favourite lens even though i am not a macro person. I just love the build, the feeling of the beefy solid metal barrel and being able to switch from auto to manual focus is great. It is my new "benchmark" lens, replacing my 50 1.8....