Nikon Nikkor 105mm F2.8 Macro lens

Is this lens any good. Preloved | nikon nikkor 105mm f2.8 macro lens for sale in Whitley Bay, Tyne & Wear
I am thinking about the Tamron SP 272E 90 mm f/2.8 AF Di Macro, but funds are low at the moment.
Which of the two is better at Close up Macro? or are they both similar?? My camera is Nikon D7000.

Thanks Kevin

It's a good lens, all of the Nikon Micro-Nikkors are good. I end up using my Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 more than the 105/2.8 D series. The 60/2.8 goes for under $250 used if you are on a tight budget and can use the shorter focal length. With the 1.5x crop- might be work looking at.

I'd love to have the 105mm myself! If the lens doesn't have any issues, I'd go for it! But I don't have either lens yet, so others could give you a more knowledgeable opinion!

I can't speak to the Tammy, but buying the 105/2.8 AF-D two years ago is not a decision I've ever regretted.

I own this Tamron's model, and am very pleased with how it performs. It is VERY sharp. However, Nikkor 105 f/2.8 is somewhat sharper, but also significantly more expensive (when it's brand new). Both give macro ratio of 1:1, so I'd say, there aren't much difference in "real life" from the perspective of an average hobbyist/semi pro. Whichever model you buy, you won't regret it.

DraganDL said:

I own this Tamron's model, and am very pleased with how it performs. It is VERY sharp. However, Nikkor 105 f/2.8 is somewhat sharper, but also significantly more expensive (when it's brand new). Both give macro ratio of 1:1, so I'd say, there aren't much difference in "real life" from the perspective of an average hobbyist/semi pro. Whichever model you buy, you won't regret it.

Click to expand...

Given that the AF-D is out-of-production, replaced with the AF-S (G) it would be difficult to find an actual 'new' one.

£240 is a good price.... $400 USD. I think I paid $450 for mine.

either is great but take the focal length into consideration because later down the line you might consider getting an 85mm prime and the Tamron is pretty much the same. both are great. personally, id get the nikkor even if its more expensive. I also think that nikkors hold their value better in reselling.

I had this same situation. it was down to the 105 VR/ 105 AFD/ Tokina 100 2.8. in the end I went for a used 105 VR because I wanted the VR and wanted a lens that doesnt change size and since I do a lot of portraits I wanted one that has excellent bokeh. so it was a strong ties between the tokina and the AFD. found a nice 105VR at a good price and bought it.

The Lens Ive linked, is none VR, and is the Older Version of the 105 I think???

kevinp said:

The Lens Ive linked, is none VR, and is the Older Version of the 105 I think???

Click to expand...

Yes. The AF-D was discontinued in 2006.

You linked to the AF-Nikkor 105/2.8 D-Series, introduced about the same time as the Nikon N90. I bought this lens with a pair of D1x's when they wre first introduced. Also bought the 60/2.8, 200/4, and 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom. I ended up using the 60/2.8 for most of my technical work in the lab.

Nikon also made a manual focus 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, think it came out in the late 1970s.

yes the AFD. the one with no motor inside. fantastic lens.

i just purchased a new Sigma 2.8 105mm. this is a great lens for the money, has if vr .
Harle

I love my 105 for still life/micro work. It's a perfect size for me.