I am looking to get the Nikon 105mm, but now am confused. Which is better or are they two totally different types of lenses? There is the 105mm f/2.8 micro and the 105mm f/2.0 with defocus. Anyone know what the primary difference is? Can the f/2.0 with defocus be used for those detail shots like the 2.8 micro?

THANKS!!!

I want to say they are somewhat close?

I"d like to know if anyone has these a well and what they like/dislike about each

The 2.0 has a min focus of 1.5 ft. with a min aperture of 16 and was released in 1993. Most importantly has a maximum reproduction ratio 1/7.7

The 2.8 has a min focus of 1ft, vibration reduction, a min aperture of 32 and was released in 2006 and has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1/1.

Does that answer your question?

-Bill

I owned both of these lenses, but never at the same time. Right now I have and use the 105 macro VR 2.8
The macro is used for extreme close-up details shots - here is an example from the blog But the focus on this lens is a bit slow - I isn't really for action shots, but it all so crisp!

The de-focus 105 is more of a specialty soft focus lens. I had one for a few months but is really wasn't my style. Yes, it has a bigger aperture, but because it can't focus a close as the macro the Depth of Field isn't as pronounced.

If you want a detail shot go with the 105 VR 2.8 you won't be disappointed!

Beautiful image Eric. Hate to say it, but it looks like that came from a Canon. Doh!

-Bill

Umm... pretty sure that came from a D200

The AF DC-NIKKOR 105mm f/2D is pretty sweet, but is quite a bit different than the AF-S VR Micro- NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED. One is a macro and one is not. I would consider them both portrait lenses as well though. It all comes down to working distance. If you want/need to get pretty close, then you'll want to go with the 105 f/2.8 VR, if you don't need such a close working distance and are going more for a head shot or head and shoulders shot, then the 105 f/2 DC will be a better fit and will give you a little more flattering image (at the same FOV) due to the larger maximum aperture. I have not owned both, but have used both for a couple of weeks each. I loved them both, but don't have a real need for either in my bag. LSS, they're pretty different lenses!

As far as close up, I can not recommend enough the Canon 500D close up lens (filter). I bought the 77mm and since most pro lenses are a 77mm filter size (they do this on purpose) I can use it on 3 of my 5 lenses. It works crazy well on the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. I use it most of the time on the 24-70 for my ring shots and other small detail shots since the 24-70 already has a reproduction ratio of 1:3.7. If you put it on the 70-200, it gets even tighter on the subject, but I usually never need to get that close. The filter only costs about $150 and turns three of my lenses into close-up lenses...I mean why wouldn't you buy it. Here are some pics taken with it and the 24-70. Oh yeah, it really is crazy sharp too!
Click to view attachment

Nikon D3 with 24-70 f/2.8 @ 70mm; 400 ISO, 1/500 sec, @ f/5.6 full image, not cropped

Click to view attachment

Nikon D3 with 24-70 f/2.8 @ 70mm; 400 ISO, 1/125 sec, @ f/8 full image, not cropped

Wow, this is the information I needed, thank you very much! I called B&H and I was only told that one was newer than the other. Normally I am able to get very good info from them, but today it was rather basic. I do want to use it for extreme close ups and so the 2.8 sounds like the one for me.

I am so excited to get this one!! Thanks for the examples Eric and Dustin!

Just making sure you understand mine is from adding $150 filter to lenses I already own instead of spending $760 on a whole new lens. Basically when adding the Canon 500D close-up filter to a 70-200 f/2.8 VR, you have a lens about as sharp (I would say about 90-95% as sharp, really imperceptible) and almost as large of a reproduction ratio (around 1:3 I would say, but more with a crop factor body) as the dedicated macro lens, BUT, you can put it on other lenses as well and not be locked in to one angle of view!

Let me put it this way, everyone I have recommended the Canon 500D close-up filter to, has purchased it instead and not just to save money, but once again, it also opens a few more doors for you so-to-speak. Nikon makes three different Macro lenses (60 f/2.8, 105 f/2.8 VR, and 200 f/4), and in essence I own them all, just by adding the filter to my lenses. No it doesn't focus quite as close, but it really does focus very close on both the 24-70 and 70-200 and is crazy sharp. Also I have VR at focal lengths 70-200 instead of just on the 105. If you don't have either of those lenses, then I don't know what to tell ya. I know I'm jabbering a lot, but I'm really just trying to show you how awesome of a value the close-up filter option is. And literally, here's a penny for thought, I took just for you! One full frame and one crop factor shot. Best of luck!


Click to view attachment
Nikon D3 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR @ 200mm; 1600 ISO, 1/160 sec, f/4 Full frame camera

Click to view attachment
Nikon D3 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR @ 200mm; 1600 ISO, 1/160 sec, f/4 Full frame camera in DX mode

Dude you rock!

That is a great real life example. I am so tempted to pick up the 500D. Can I ask why you went with the Canon versus something from Nikon or...?

-Bill

Holy Cow! Now, forgive me for sounding silly, but a Canon close-up filter would work on a Nikon lens? That is super cool!

This is directed at both Bill and Lisa. I would have bought a filter like the 500D from Nikon if they made it, but they don't. I am one of these people who likes to have all the same brand items and whatnot, so at first the thought bothered me, but the most important thing, is the images. Naturally the filter, is just that, a filter. It's just like using a Hoya or B+W, but it's a Canon. Othe companies do make close up filters, but not exactly like the Canon 500D. The 500D (which is for longer focal lengths and it's little brother the 250D which I believe is for a little shorter focal lengths are the best available I think. They make them in different mm just like all other filters as well. The 77mm is a beast. It weighs about as much as my Nikkor 50 f/1.4! I meant what I said about people not buying a dedicated macro over the 500D. I've had 4 people that have all looked into getting the 105 f/2.8 VR, that played with it and liked it a lot and then I showed them the 500D on my 24-70 and 70-200 VR and once you see the results and compare them, unless you need lifesize, there really isn't all that much reason to drop the extra dough on a dedicated macro. Holy run on sentence Batman! I am not saying it's better (I believe it to be about as good), but I believe it offers WAY more value to the photographer, especially if they have multiple lenses with whatever mm 500D is purchased. I've even used it on my 85 f/1.4 and while very tricky with the focusing because it isn't AF-S, the results are still killer!

What I am trying to say, is BUY THE 500D, you won't regret it!!!

How can I NOT be interested now? Do you have any images using it on your 85mm? just curious I guess. When do you find that you take this filter out to use? I WISH I would have bought the 24-70 and not the 17-55mm. Now being full frame my 17-55mm DX lens doesn't work the way it should!!! uber frustrating!

I have a 105/2.8 VR Micro. I had the 105/2 DC but I sold it to Zack. Look at the headshots on his site. I believe he shot most of them with the 105/2 DC. I shot the last image in my children gallery with it.

I use the micro as my telephoto lens for everything but the ceremony at weddings (70-200 for that purpose.) It is lighter than the 70-200 and it has VR. It doesn't focus very fast but it is faster than the DC lens. Having a macro lens is a bonus because I'm always able to get in on a detail if I see one.

The 105 micro is sharper at 2.8 than the 70-200, even when focused at far distances.

Thank you! It is nice to see images taken with them.

I've been telling people for years here about using close-up diopters instead of purchasing macro lenses. I use the Nikon 5T and 6T (which aren't made anymore), but they're just like the Canon ones. Make sure you get a two-element designed diopter. They should cost at least $100 each -- probably more like $150. If you're getting a set of three for 20 bucks, you won't be happy with the quality.

I use them on my 85mm lens and couldn't be happier. No light loss, and super-easy to carry. And if you get some step-up or -down rings, you can use them on other lens diameters. But if you use a step-down ring, be sure not to shoot wide open or you'll get vignetting. It's not usually a problem because at those focusing distances, you usually want more DOF than f/1.4 or f/1.8 will give you.

All I have to say is rent the 105mm f2.8 and play with it for a week.

Here are some of my shots with it:

http://johnscarpa.net/p171305549/

Its a rockin lens that is light and fun to use, and its so sharp you can cut your self if you are not careful.

wonderful examples! thank you! I laughed at your sharp comment!

FWIW I had rented the 105 macro and I HATED the focusing issue. A friend of mine reccomended the 60 2.8 macro and I LOVE it. It doesn't have VR but I seriously LOVE this lens. It's a lot easier to focus and quick. I got the 'new' one that came out in 2008 which I guess is a lot quieter and faster than the old one.

The only problem that there is with the 105vr is that when you go from shooting something thats right next to the lens to shooting something that is farther away, it takes a little bit to get there. If you are shooting stuff that is in or about the same distance you have no problems. Example: shooting people at an event or B&G at the ceremony, there is no problem.

On the other hand, you have the 60mm F2.8, its a great lens by all means! But the only problems that I had with the lens is that when you focus the lens the front part moves in and out pretty far, and the working distance is much closer (see example below)

60mm f2.8

(you) __________ Subject



105mm f2.8

(you)__________________________________Subject




with the 60mm its about 3in to reach a 1:1 ratio with the older 60mm and the new afs is about 1in form subject to lens front for 1:1 and with the 105 its about 6in.

Now that is something to think about!


60mm afs: