Nikon 105mm Macro VR for portraits

technics100

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,989
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I currently have a Sigma 50mm Macro f/2.8 and a Nikon 85mm AF-D f/1.8. I was toying with the idea of swapping out both for the Nikon 105mm VR Macro lens. It would be used with a D750 and used to shoot the odd wedding.. Which is why I have the 50mm (ring shots) The 85mm I generally use for portraits and speeches, so thinking the 105mm might be handy for extra reach with the VR. I also don't really shoot the 85mm wide open unless I have too.

Thoughts??
 
Hi,

I currently have a Sigma 50mm Macro f/2.8 and a Nikon 85mm AF-D f/1.8. I was toying with the idea of swapping out both for the Nikon 105mm VR Macro lens. It would be used with a D750 and used to shoot the odd wedding.. Which is why I have the 50mm (ring shots) The 85mm I generally use for portraits and speeches, so thinking the 105mm might be handy for extra reach with the VR. I also don't really shoot the 85mm wide open unless I have too.

Thoughts??
I have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 OS and have recently had the opportunity to try it against the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR lens side by side.
To be honest I couldn't really tell any difference in IQ and would maybe even give the nod towards the Sigma for sharpness. The Nikon is all internal focussing so doesn't extend if that is of any importance to you but of it were my money I'd save the extra and go for the Sigma.
 
The Nikon 105 is a noisy lens.
Try and check one out first.
 
I’ll try mine tomorrow and see if I am correct.
 
If you google noisy Nikon 105 macro there are lots of threads on various sites about the VR being noisy.
 
The a.f on the Nikon 105mm VR is too slow to be useful in a lot of situations especially a wedding.

It is a good macro lens though.
 
The a.f on the Nikon 105mm VR is too slow to be useful in a lot of situations especially a wedding.

It is a good macro lens though.

Have you ever used the Tamron 90mm VC I mentioned above? I know jonney says it's not great when adapted. Interested in it myself
 
Don't show ring-shots on your portfolio or website and no-one will expect them, ergo no macro needed

Works for me :)

Dave

I like doing ring shots. I also use a macro lens for the rest of the brides jewellery, her shoes, sometimes the flowers especially button holes and a few other bits and bobs. Wouldn't want to be without one really. Plus the Sony macro is a different league and is one of the only macro lenses around that can be used for other stuff as well as the a.f speed is pretty decent for a macro lens, so it is good redundancy for my 85mm f/1.4. Wouldn't consider any other macro lens for portraits etc. though as the a.f is just way to slow.
 
Last edited:
I like doing ring shots. I also use a macro lens for the rest of the brides jewellery, her shoes, sometimes the flowers especially button holes and a few other bits and bobs. Wouldn't want to be without one really. Plus the Sony macro is a different league and is one of the only macro lenses around that can be used for other stuff as well as the a.f speed is pretty decent for a macro lens, so it is good redundancy for my 85mm f/1.4. Wouldn't consider any other macro lens for portraits etc. though as the a.f is just way to slow.

Interesting - the ONLY reason I have a macro was one couple who had their grandparents' rings melted down to create their new ones, so there was a story of how they were made too

Thinking it'd be a daft expense I also bought the 150mm macro so I could use it for other Wedding work, and I've only used it once at a Wedding in 2 years since needing a macro. I actually use it more for personal work (not as a macro) and especially Landscapes

I'm considering moving to mirrlorless and won't be buying a macro then :)

Dave
 
OK I've tried it and I take back that it is noisy. There is a constant noise when VR is on but it is not intrusive.
As f2.8 said, AF is slowish.
 
Back
Top