THE 105 AF VR 2.8 INFORMATION FROM USERS

[Tusker]

I am looking, after much soul searching , at the 105 AF VR 2.8 -- it would seem this would cover several bases, both near, and far in relation to what I do. Anyone here offer up anything on this? Anything you, as a user, feel is a problem, or drawback?? Just looking for FYI as it were. THANKS!!

[nasoj21]

I have not used the lens much, but very sharp yet hunts during focus

[Gregg]

It's a fantastic lens, not a lot sharper than my older 105 but contrast is better, focusing speed, it has IF, bayonet hood, etc. And I have some very good close-ups that would not have been possible without the VR. If there is a drawback, the focus will hunt a little in low light.

Gregg

[Screamin Scott]

I just joined this forum this week & saw this query...I use a Nikon D70s & my Macro lens is a "Lester A. Dine" 105mm F2.8 made for the Dine Corp by Kino Prescion...It goes to 1:1 without tubes & was marketed to the Dental community for intra-Oral photography...
I prefer to use MF lenses for Macro as AF is pretty much useless at 1:1...I also use a focusing rail & tripod of course..Since the D70s doesn't meter with MF glass, I use Sunny 16/Gossen Luna Pro/histogram for exposure...You can find this lens on eBay for $150-300 used...It's well worth it...My 2 cents

Scott

[riha]

I use the sigma 150 macro lens and it works great. The only drawback with using longer macro lenses is that you get an smaller DOF compared to an 105, 90 or 60 mm macro lens.

I would recommend you to take an look at the Tamron 90 mm macro lens as it has been rewarded with the lens of the year 3 years ago or something like that. Since then an newer versions has been released.

Also, the sigma 150 lens has EXfinish and HSM drive so it is quiet and does not extend.

[riha]

Originally Posted by nasoj21

I have not used the lens much, but very sharp yet hunts during focus

are we talking about focusing for macro shots or focusing in general. all macro lenses unts during closeup macro shots, that is why it is recommended with manual focusing for macro shooting.

[Screamin Scott]

Which was the reason for my post several days ago about using MF glass for my Macro pics...That plus the fact that you can pick up used MF Macro lenses for a lot less than their AF counterparts...

Scott

Scott

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by Tusker

I am looking, after much soul searching , at the 105 AF VR 2.8 -- it would seem this would cover several bases, both near, and far in relation to what I do. Anyone here offer up anything on this? Anything you, as a user, feel is a problem, or drawback?? Just looking for FYI as it were. THANKS!!

I'd love to try this out. VR in a lens like this would be handy, IMO, although some will say unnecessary. I've always felt, however, that you ultimately want all three macro/micro lenses: 60, 100, and 180. Each has its purpose, and they're really not interchangable.

[DragonflyDM]

The major benifit of the lens is AFS over the VR. If you are using MACRO the VR does not work, which is ok,, because there isn't much need for it.

When you are shooting Portraits or Sports, the AFS is great. The VR does have some benifit in low light, but if the subject moves then you risk motion blur.

[JDArt]

I've often found myself using a macro lens of this length "on the fly," meaning without the benefit of tripod. In those cases, VR is only good.