Nikon 105 lens

Hi Guys,
Can you tell me what is the difference with the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED VR lens and the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lenses?
(I can only see ED VR or IF-ED)

Does anybody know the smallest focus distance for the above lenses?

I have a D800 and need a Micro lens, any other suggestions would be considered.

Check out the Tokina 100/2.8 PRO micro. It has better reviews than the Nikon 105. I use mine on my D800. Check the thread on Prime Lenses.


By the way, in the two 105s, I believe one is a G and the other isn't. You could use either on a D800.

Hi TedG954,
thanks for the info, I will have a look at the Tokina and I am going to look at your gallery.

All depends on what you are going to do with it I have taken the odd macro with my 90mm and to get closer I use a Raynox DCR-250 close up lens. Feel free to check out my site.

wombat said:

Hi Guys,
Can you tell me what is the difference with the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED VR lens and the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lenses?
(I can only see ED VR or IF-ED)
Does anybody know the smallest focus distance for the above lenses?
I have a D800 and need a Micro lens, any other suggestions would be considered.

Click to expand...

It is the same lens, the correct name is the 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor IF-ED. The older version was called 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor.

The minimum focus distance for the current lens is 0.314m (1.0 ft).

The 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor IF-ED would be perfect for your camera.

Nikon Australia - AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED -

Hi Scott,
I want to do some close up shots of flowers, petals & stamins and insects etc

going to look at your site now

I've got the 105mm Nikon and I love it. Not only good for macro of course.

wow Vixen, great shots, that is what I want to try, is your 105 a ED VR or IF-ED?

The IF stands for internal focusing, the ED is extra dispersion. The 105 VR of Nikon only comes in one version. The other is an "older" 105mm which I doubt is still available new. If I had to buy another macro, I'd probably add this newer 105mm VR to the kit. If you can pick VR or non-VR, I'd go for VR for sure. VR can provide you a stop or two in aperture or ISO you'd really need in macro. I use non-VR and often have to sacrifice them to up the shutter and eliminate shake.

The AF-S VR also allows you to put the TC20E-III between which basically doubles your lens to some 210mm and increases your magnification when closing in again. The tele-connector however will disable auto-focus and you'll have to go manual. But it's the only macro of Nikon that is supported by it. At the price of some minor IQ of course.

From tests I read the Sigma with stabilization isn't too shabby either.

yes I too have heard about the Sigma, but have not seen any close up pics from it.

thank you for the ED and IF meanings.

wombat said:

yes I too have heard about the Sigma, but have not seen any close up pics from it.

thank you for the ED and IF meanings.

Click to expand...

The shots taken with all those lenses will basically be the same. Any true macro is 1:1 and although there's a quality difference between all lenses, it's not the lens that takes a great shot. A good lens might help but it doesn't do more than that so it will be hard to value a lens upon a shot taken. Unless of course identical shots are taken with different lenses, then the differences might show.

At the level of sharpness, the 105mm is about the best in the Nikon macro range. The Sigma equals it, if not better. Sharpness is something that's pretty important in macro; f/2.8 or more is of less importance unless you also use it as a portrait lens. Then the wider it opens, the better.

In the end you'll have to compare the technical part vs what you want to pay. Shots taken with them won't help you much in making a choice.

thanks J-see I'll do more research on the Sigma.

wombat said:

thanks J-see I'll do more research on the Sigma.

Click to expand...

It's important to take the test results with a grain of salt. What I find strange is that most tests done with macro lenses never really test or compare the lens at 1:1. It might make little difference if you'd test a 105mm using normal or 1:1 but me thinks when you test or compare macro, it should be about macro.

wombat said:

wow Vixen, great shots, that is what I want to try, is your 105 a ED VR or IF-ED?

Click to expand...

It's ED VR Wombat.

thanks guys for all of your help.

Probably one of Nikons best lens. Not saying the other ones can't be comparable but the Nikon is incredible. Go to Flickr and take a look

Dont pay more for macro lens . Macro lens is very expensive.
Use extention tube or reverse ring and more practice .

The 105 works really well with my D810 for landscape as well as micro work.