About the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G • All versions vs 85mm ƒ1.8

[Kodiak]

•
All references are made to FX sensor format!

Hi everyone,

I said somewhere that I bought the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
earlier this spring, and posted some photos done with it. Even my son Olivier
(14yo) could not resist… he gave it a try and posted some photos!

Here is something I explained him, as any normal thing he should know, and
since I got 4 P@ asking about it, I will post here the answers.

I cannot afford 2 lenses: the 105 and the 85 that I wanted.
Why should I buy the 2 lenses?

You don't have to! the 85mm ƒ1.8 can do fine portraits, very cool for reportage
and street photos, etc.

The 105mm ƒ/2.8 can do the same plus, because of its construction, it will add the
macro range to all of the previously stated features.

In short, the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED (in any macro versions)
is to be seen as a normal short tele with extended capacities. And at ƒ2.8, luminous
enough to be very flexible, even in low light photography!

The slight difference in bokeh will be attenuated by the longer focal length.

Have a good time!

 

[WayneF]

In short, the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED (in any macro versions)
is to be seen as a normal short tele with extended capacities. And at ƒ2.8, luminous
enough to be very flexible, even in low light photography!

But what is never mentioned is DX. 105mm is 160mm effective view on DX, which is approaching a longer telephoto. It is one thing on your FX, but somewhat different on DX.

105 was a classic for head/shoulders portraits in the days of 35mm film (FX). It forced the camera to stand back 6 feet or so, to get it all in, which was good for perspective (to avoid making noses look larger, etc). But 160mm effective on DX has to stand back a lot farther. Some living rooms don't allow that much space.

For DX, 70 mm is the same effective focal length as 105mm on FX. Same view, and does all the same things.

 

[Kodiak]

•

Right Wayne… I never held a DX! All I know is the FX format.

Until yesterday I did not know what P&S meant… now I know!

Thanks for the complementary information. =)

Have a good time!

 

[WayneF]

Many/most of the forum readers are DX users, so that's always been one of my concerns... That being when newbies are advised to get a 50mm lens for normal view general purpose. Or 85mm or 105 mm for portraits. Which may be good advice for FX, which matched the view of 35mm cameras, but it seems pretty wrong today for DX. The terminology has changed.

For DX, divide these classic focal lengths by 1.5. This then gives the same view, and same effects.

 

[Kodiak]

•

The question addressed to me was from a FX user.

Anyways, thanks for the translation!

 

[piperbarb]

As a DX user coming from the world of 35mm film, it took me a while to get the 1.5x form factor as second nature. Now, it doesn't bother me. It was weird to think of a 35mm lens as "normal" and not wide angle. Anyway, I have the AF 105 micro Nikkor from my F4 days. Love the lens.

 

[Kodiak]

•

Hello Barbara,

Although I'm having a ball with the gear I have, I always get a "feeling" when I look
back in the F3 and F4 archives!These were some times…

I sill hand 7 or 8 lenses from the F3 that my sons actually use!

 

[Rick M]

I owned both and since have sold the 85 for the reasons Kodiak has stated. If I need a shorter focal length for portraits the 70-200 f4 works very well. The 105 2.8g serves many purposes, more than just macro. I went on a nature walk today with the family and carried only the 105. Shot everything from family, flowers, macro to landscapes, It's the most flexible lens I own.

 

[Photowyzard]

I will just add my voice of praise to the Nikon Nikkor 105mm f2.8G VR lens.

I have owned one now for over a year and simply can say enough great things about it. I use it in an FX format, on my D800.

It still remains one of my favourite lenses for many applications. The images, when properly exposed, are simply amazing.

This is one of my best images taken with the lens, for anyone curious in sharpness and overall image quality.

Just follow this link:

500px / Falcon by Art Lupinacci

​

 

[gqtuazon]

I owned both and since have sold the 85 for the reasons Kodiak has stated. If I need a shorter focal length for portraits the 70-200 f4 works very well. The 105 2.8g serves many purposes, more than just macro. I went on a nature walk today with the family and carried only the 105. Shot everything from family, flowers, macro to landscapes, It's the most flexible lens I own.

Same here Rick. The macro lens can definitely be used on just about anything. When there aren't too many subjects to shoot, the macro lens can always offer other interesting stuff to keep you motivated with photography.

I can see the point coming from Wayne but the good thing about the macro, is that you can shoot a lot closer unlike the 85mm which has a minimum shooting distance of ~3ft.


macro 016 by gqtuazon, on Flickr

 

[Kodiak]

Just follow this link:​

Hello Toronto!

Well I did… I mean, I did follow the link. What pleases me is where details are lacking,
the colours are taking over. I'm taking about the chest and belly feathers of the falcon!

Art, that was a treat! Thanks!

 

[Photowyzard]

Hello Toronto!

Well I did… I mean, I did follow the link. What pleases me is where details are lacking,
the colours are taking over. I'm taking about the chest and belly feathers of the falcon!

Art, that was a treat! Thanks!

I am glad you liked it. Thanks. I can't speak enough praises for the 105mm.

​ Speaking in general, if it fits into your budget and needs, this is really nice Nikon Glass!

 

[Kodiak]

I owned both and since have sold the 85 for the reasons Kodiak has stated. If I need a
shorter focal length for portraits the 70-200 f4 works very well. The 105 2.8g serves
many purposes, more than just macro. I went on a nature walk today with the family
and carried only the 105. Shot everything from family, flowers, macro to landscapes,
It's the most flexible lens I own.

Hi Rick,

I have both the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G and the AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G.

Strangely enough, I take/make decision only after I have done my homework. and
when it comes to gear, (knock on wood!) I never regretted any decision yet.

It is important to earn that money twice! At this level and with this kind of techno-
logies, the grands are flying over the counter at a fair pace.

 

[ladytonya]

Dang! I keep reading all about the best lenses but I'd have to take out a second mortgage in order to afford that thing, that's more than I paid for my camera plus two kit lenses that came with it. I want another lens in my bag to work with but I'm poor.

 

[STM]

Dang! I keep reading all about the best lenses but I'd have to take out a second mortgage in order to afford that thing, that's more than I paid for my camera plus two kit lenses that came with it. I want another lens in my bag to work with but I'm poor.

Autofocus with a macro lens is a crap shoot at best when you are dealing with high magnification and therefore very shallow depth of film. Manual focus is highly recommended. A used 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor can be had for a fraction of that G lens and its optical prowess is legendary. Get the PN-11 extension tube and you can go to 1:1

 

[Whiskeyman]

I'm very pleased with my new Nikkor Micro 105. Here is another "tryout" shot from the weekend.



From my parents' garden in Florida, one of their pineapples.
WM