[Dutchie]

I've got some money to spend this year. And to top op my lenses, I'm looking for a macro lens.

Now I'm perticularly looking at the Nikkor 105vr. And I know there are a few people at this forum who've got this lens. But no reviews to be found

Could anybody give me an opinion of which one to go for. Or is there a comparible cheaper model around which is brilliant aswell?

[towershot]

Not got it, but if you are shooting macro with a 105mm you will need (unless you have arms of steel) a tripod, now VR has to be switched off while mounted on a tripod, so IMHO a lot of money is going on a VR lens which is being wasted.

Why not try the 105mm Micro NON vr lens and save a big chunk of money,it,s supposed to be sharper as well...........

[silkstone]

Alternatives are the Sigma 105 macro - very good but the front section extends when focusing, which doesn't appeal to everyone - and the Sigma 150 macro which is relatively large and heavy but useful if you don't want to get so close - bees and wasps, for instance.

[Dutchie]

Originally Posted by towershot

Not got it, but if you are shooting macro with a 105mm you will need (unless you have arms of steel) a tripod, now VR has to be switched off while mounted on a tripod, so IMHO a lot of money is going on a VR lens which is being wasted.

Why not try the 105mm Micro NON vr lens and save a big chunk of money,it,s supposed to be sharper as well...........

I'm about to get a tripod. So that wouldn't be a problem. But the vr switched off Why if I may ask? That sound odd.

[Charlotte]

Dutchie, the VR doesn't "have" to be switched off, it's just wise to do so when mounted on a tripod, since you don't need the VR in that case and it saves battery power (VR uses extra power).

I can't agree with towershot's logic in arriving at the conclusion of going for a cheaper macro lens without VR. Don't forget that you are not restricted to shooting macro with this lens Nor indeed do you have to be bound to using a tripod. It is also a great lens for portraits, especially on a DX camera, since its FL equates to (roughly) 150mm on a DX. And when using it for portraits, the VR is invaluable, as it is with any handheld close up shots Yes I use this lens handheld - often ... it's heavy but not unmanageable

I have to say that it is my most used lens, and I can't recommend it highly enough ... go for it!

[GarynLea]

How 'macro' do you want to go? Raynox do some great clip on lenses and very well priced, like the DCR250 or the MSN202 but I'd recommend a good tripod and macro rail to go with them.

Gary

[Markulous]

I guess it ust depend on how you want to use the lens.

If all you wanted to shoot was macros of flowers (or other still life) then VR is somewhat redundant as a good tripod would be much more essential. Early versions of stabilisation systems suffered when on a tripod (they depend on rapid gyroscopic movements so they actually introduced vibrations!) but I believe that's not now the case (and I use 300mm and 100-400mm stabilised lenses, switched on, on tripods with no perceived ill effect)

If it's insects and other creepie-crawlies then VR comes into it's own (tho' I do recall suggestions that VR is not very effective at macro distances) and a tripod becomes a nuisance and even monopods difficult (anyone trying to capture moving insects wll know what I mean!)

Then there's the use of the 105mm as a portrait lens. I've the Sigma 105mm macro lens and use it as my main portrait lens (not that I take many portrait shots!)

[Dutchie]

Ah yes, now I know again why I'd choosen this lens to buy in the future.
Yes I love shooting portraits. So i would definitely use the lens for this as well.

With macro. I would go for the bees and creepy crawlies for a while I imagine.

Thanks guys

[JMitchell]

You could also look at the Tamron 90mm which is cheaper, and slightly shorter which can be better for portraits, cos you don't have to have so much working space. Produces great results, and very sharp

[Dutchie]

Hi Jack You've got that tamron. I remember that a while back. So your still quiet happy with the tamron?

[JMitchell]

Me? Biased?
Yes I have got it, and I am still very happy with it.
Just posted a thread here showing what it can do in a concert setting, and all the water drop shots I've posted recently from the D300 were done with it.
Very sharp, fast, and a good focal length for most average things, maybe a bit long for some cases, but obviously not for macro

[M1ke A]

A friend has recently got the Sigma 150mm which looks to well put together.

Obvious downside is the slow focus and he tells me it hunts quite badly in lower light onhis 30D.

[Dutchie]

I've read that about the sigma 105 as well. Not a good idea to go for the sigma at all.
I'm only getting strong advice from everywhere to go for the nikon 105vr.

I will stick with that I think. I'd rather spend a bit more and being happy with the lens without any regrets.

It's hard to find any reviews on that lens though. It's a shame. If anybody who have got that lens, want to write a review on pixalo please? It makes live easier for newbies like me

[Sonsey]

Originally Posted by Dutchie

I'm only getting strong advice from everywhere to go for the nikon 105vr.

I will stick with that I think. I'd rather spend a bit more and being happy with the lens without any regrets.

It's hard to find any reviews on that lens though. It's a shame. If anybody who have got that lens, want to write a review on pixalo please? It makes live easier for newbies like me

I believe Charlotte has the 105 VR, but I'm not sure she's had much chance to use it since she got it... I'll point this thread out to her anyway.