Nikon 105mm Macro as a tele?

Rick M

Senior Member
Can any users comment on how good this lens performs at a distance? I know it's razor sharp for macro, is that consistant for landscapes also?

Thanks!
 

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
Hi Rick,

What kind of distance are we talking about? I've used the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Macro VR as a midrange telephoto lenses for portraiture and it performs quite well, although my experience with the lens in low contrast scenes and those with strong backlight made autofocus something of an issue, especially when trying to work at a reasonable pace.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
For example, a distant waterfall, animal, ect. I'm hoping it can pull double duty with the same quality as it has in macro.
 

Disorderly

Senior Member
My only issue with the 105 is how slow it can be to focus. That said, I've used it to capture small planes coming toward me on approach to a runway. Quality was excellent, and the weight was a lot easier to deal with than my 70-200.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I think it does just as well as any other prime but what makes it special is that it's the smallest prime lens with VR. The one drawback and the main reason people don't grab it for waterfall photos is that it's heavy. I used to think my 105mm D was heavy but compared to the 105mm G, it's a feather. On the bright side, the G produces a much sharper image and the AF is quite a bit faster than the D lens.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I'm not a bug shooter, but would like some macro ability for flowers and a lens over 100mm. I wonder how the new 70-200 f4 would be for flowers or portraits, would 200mm at it's min focus distance of 1 meter get me close enough?
 

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
I think it does just as well as any other prime but what makes it special is that it's the smallest prime lens with VR. The one drawback and the main reason people don't grab it for waterfall photos is that it's heavy. I used to think my 105mm D was heavy but compared to the 105mm G, it's a feather. On the bright side, the G produces a much sharper image and the AF is quite a bit faster than the D lens.

It does focus faster. Unfortunately, it also is known for hunting in low contrast scenes and I've discovered that even when the eye doesn't see a scene as low contrast, the camera does, and I've been very frustrated by the AF on this lens when the light isn't great or contrast is low.
 

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
I'm not a bug shooter, but would like some macro ability for flowers and a lens over 100mm. I wonder how the new 70-200 f4 would be for flowers or portraits, would 200mm at it's min focus distance of 1 meter get me close enough?

Depends on what kind of macro you like to shoot. Then again, you do have 24 megapixels to play with and that gives you a bit of room for reasonable cropping.

If you like super close macro work then I don't think the 70-200mm will get you there with in-camera cropping.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Depends on what kind of macro you like to shoot. Then again, you do have 24 megapixels to play with and that gives you a bit of room for reasonable cropping.

If you like super close macro work then I don't think the 70-200mm will get you there with in-camera cropping.

I think you are right and the IQ would probably be lower.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I think it does just as well as any other prime but what makes it special is that it's the smallest prime lens with VR. The one drawback and the main reason people don't grab it for waterfall photos is that it's heavy. I used to think my 105mm D was heavy but compared to the 105mm G, it's a feather. On the bright side, the G produces a much sharper image and the AF is quite a bit faster than the D lens.

So you feel it retains it's high IQ at long distance?
 

piperbarb

Senior Member
When I take closeup photos, I would never use AF. I want to be sure that I am focucing on what I think is important, not what the camera thinks is important.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I'm not a bug shooter, but would like some macro ability for flowers and a lens over 100mm. I wonder how the new 70-200 f4 would be for flowers or portraits, would 200mm at it's min focus distance of 1 meter get me close enough?

Make it easy on yourself and just get them both!
 

Pierro

Senior Member
Rick, it may depend on the lens. I can tell you that my Panagor 1:1 true macro 90mm f2.8 wouldnt focus on anything beyond about 15 or 20 feet, because it wasnt designed to, as its MO was pure macro, so it was close up work only, though a head and shoulders portrait would have been fine at less than those distances.

The Panagor was an old lens though, M42 mount, so a modern macro maybe well be different, but thought it was worth mentioning
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Can any users comment on how good this lens performs at a distance? I know it's razor sharp for macro, is that consistant for landscapes also?

Thanks!

Tell you what Rick, I'll break out both of my lenses (Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR and 70-200mm f2.8 VRII at 105mm) if the weather permits. I'll pixel peep and will share the results whatever is around the parking lot.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Tell you what Rick, I'll break out both of my lenses (Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR and 70-200mm f2.8 VRII at 105mm) if the weather permits. I'll pixel peep and will share the results whatever is around the parking lot.

That would be great glenn! Thanks!
 
Top