Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens

Top positive review

I never knew how great a lens could be, until this one. The detail is a thrill to work with!

Reviewed in the United States on January 7, 2024

All I can say is that if you've NOT been using a High Quality Micro Lens (Nikkor term for Macro) then RUN out and pick one of these up. If you've ever been disappointed with your close up shots of products you might want to sell, the detail in artistic items that you've made, PORTRAITS (yep!) of your grandchildren and children and so many other things I simply do not know a better way to jump start your "fun" in photography again.
This lens is designed with VR and it does a great job of it especially if you're hand holding it. On a tripod (which I use often for the above mentioned items) it's simply spectacular. It's a FAST Autofocus if you ask me ESPECIALLY if you consider that you are more than likely trying to focus on a very minute and specific area without moving (thus the VR). You'll learn, don't worry - even hand holding. You may have to get your lighting better, and make the shutter speed adjustments you need but the results will make you LOVE photography again.
This lens is SO much better then a 40mm or 60mm IF you're after the very best. That's not to say I haven't gotten spectacular shots with the other lenses. It's an amazing portrait lens too when setup correctly and will contend with an 85mm in almost every way and better it. However, owning both this lens and the 85mm would be the best if you can afford it. If you're into shooting small insects, flowers, and the like I just can't imagine not having this lens - yes, it's THAT good. Almost non-existing hunting lags, and super sharp, crystal clear photos. Nikon really got this one right. Amazingly you can get these used (like new) for less that $450. Enjoy.!

2 people found this helpful

Top critical review

Critical reviews›

R. Ammari

Know the limitations

Reviewed in the United States on February 25, 2013

I bought this Lens for Macro and portrait photography. I have: "Nikon 35mm 1.8G" and "Nikon 55-300mm 4.5-5.6G VR" and Nikon D5100 Camera.
I am a beginner and I will review the Lens from a practical point of view. won't be much technical.
-Size: The lens is fat and a bit heavy but won't break your neck. The lens hood is too long and might interfere with your Macro shots.
-Sharpness: This lens is NOT sharp (go check online shots taken by the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro Lens and compare it to shots taken by this lens - no comparison! ). it's so overrated for sharpness. I honestly expected more from the "sharpest Nikon lens".
-Focus: SLOW! it hunts a lot compared to my 35mm 1.8G. if you are buying this lens to shoot moving objects like pets you will be disappointed! the Lens won't focus fast enough and most of your photos will be out of focus specially at F2.8-3.5. this range is almost useless in the Lens. it's useless in Macro and it's so hard to nail the focus for far objects unless you are photographing a still object like a rock! or an object within 6 feet from you.
-Color: amazing colors but there is chromatic aberration if you shoot in harsh light.
-VR: not as useful as you would expect.
-Value: depends on what you are buying this lens for:
Macro: Great Lens. you still need to carry all your gear and macro flash. the Lens will give you more range and brighter field when you look in the view finder. you can also get a wider depth of field as long as you have enough light. great Macro Lens.
Portraits: it's Ok but you can get an 85mm 1.8G for cheaper. if you are just buying it for portraits you will be disappointed. will take you more time to focus and it's hard to nail the focus if the target is far and you are trying to get more of the surroundings in your shot.
Wildlife/Pets: forget about it! pay some more and get the 70-200mm 2.8G. it's more versatile is those situations.
The Lens is relatively expensive. and the selling points are: VR (not that helpful) , Wide Aperture (the Lens is not that useful at F2.8-3.5 / the Lens will change the Aperture for closer objects so for close ups you can't go to 2.8 and for far objects it's hard to nail the focus with that narrow depth of field specially for moving objects) , Nano crystals coat to reduce flare and chromatic aberrations (you still going to get chromatic aberrations, trust me!)
I really wanted to love this Lens, all the hype, great ratings and reviews. well, it was disappointing a bit to me.
Buy this Lens if you are mainly into Macro and might use it for portraits once in a while.

**Update (April 2013): I have been using the lens for quite a while now. I think I missed one aspect in my review; "BOKEH"! This Lens might give you the best Bokeh compared to other lenses in that price range. The Bokeh is just so beautiful, silky and creamy.. will give your images a dreamy blurred background and a professional look. I couldn't achieve such pretty Bokeh with my 50mm or 35mm 1.8G even on wider Aperture. knowing the limitations of this Lens by using it mainly for Macro and Portraits will leave you satisfied.

13 people found this helpful

1,460 total ratings, 1,016 with reviews

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

DS Illinois

I never knew how great a lens could be, until this one. The detail is a thrill to work with!

Reviewed in the United States on January 7, 2024

*: BlackStyle: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Dragoneer

Excellent Lens!

Reviewed in the United States on March 29, 2013

*: BlackStyle: 2202Verified Purchase

I always spend the first few days with a new lens around my own house and neighborhood. This time gives me a chance to get used to its capabilities and quirks without any pressure. Well the new 70-200mm F/4 is a winner. I started this era with Nikon equipment (after 30 years away from photography) with the Nikon 55-200mm VR then got a 70-300mm VR. The latter was a better optic at comparable focal lengths, built better, and cost more. My plan is to use the new 70-200mm on a D7100 along with the 1.7 teleconverter as needed. However, I will not make the transition from my D90 or buy the teleconverter until either PhotoShop CS5 handles raw from the D7100 and has an appropriate lens model in raw or I'm willing to buy CS6. The history is important since the ability to compare the 70-300mm and the 70-200mm is, perhaps, limited by the D90 sensor. My initial reactions are all positive:

1. The focus is quick and accurate, the limiter switch - tells camera to not focus closer than 3 meters - is useful and eliminated focus hunting in many low-light situations.

2. The VR seemed better than my prior two medium tele lenses but that is always hard to tell since technique and technology both contribute.

3. Out-of-focus renderings were creamy and pleasant.

4. Sharpness was super (by visual inspection) and seemed to persist throughout the entire image as one would hope when used on a DX body.

5. The internal focus, IF, should really be called I{F|Z} to indicate additional IZ standing for Internal Zoom. The lens length stays constant no matter what.

6. The lens is a little heavier and longer(!) than the 70-300mm - that is because it has more glass elements, wider aperture, and I{F|Z},

7. The mechanics and build quality are great. All switches and imaging rings move smoothly and the lens feels solid. I have no idea whether the 70-300mm or the new one has more metal but the 70-200mm feels better and snugger.

8. I haven't seen any chromatic aberrations or flare problems even when bright light came from the front; N.B., I used the supplied lens hood.

9. From reports, I expected more bending distortions, e.g., barrel distortion, than I actually saw. That may be because I'm shooting DX.

I really love this lens and am looking forward to a D7100 and teleconverter along with PhotoShop raw processing so I can get all the advantages I see with this lens. If you are happy with jpgs or are satisfied with a body were you have good raw support, I highly recommend this lens.

PS I know that Nikon's ViewNX 2 is available to support a raw work flow but I'm not comfortable using that software. If you are, some of my above comments do not apply to you.

ADDED 04/25/2013: For those of you who want a tripod collar but don't want to pay Nikon prices, consider an alternative DSLRKIT Full Metal Tripod Mount Ring for Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens , it's under forty dollars, well made, and fits perfectly. It ships by international mail from the People's Republic of China and takes a few weeks to get here. So if you aren't in a rush ...

ADDED 06/28/2013: I have obtained a Nikon TC-14E II teleconverter for use with my 70-200mm. There are no bad things to say about the combination and many good: 1) lens length increase is only the order of 1", 2) there is a only a slight, hardly noticeable weight increase, 3) I can't see any difference in sharpness or contrast on either the D90 or D7100, 4) I no longer have length anxiety by not using my 70-300MM VR, and 5) I don't notice any difference in focus or VR speed. Together with the D7100 the lens and teleconverter approximate a 150-420MM (or 200-560MM in crop mode) f/5.6 IF VR lens in a nicely made and balanced package. I originally considered the TC-17E II but decide against it; though I would have longer reach by a factor of 20%, I'd lose some autofocus modes (according to Nikon's web site). I thought that loss to be a bad tradeoff but would certainly like to hear about experiences of others.

For what it's worth, I bought the imported (gray market) version of the TC-14E II for about $100 dollars less than the US version - this loses the extra four years of warranty given US products; since there are few moving parts, I felt this was a reasonable and safe move.

22 people found this helpful

Helpful

Anthony Ruggeri

Light, Solid, Quality

Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2013

*: BlackStyle: 2202Verified Purchase

First a short intro: I'm a serious amateur, not a professional, and I'm mainly a nature, landscape, and travel photographer. I mostly don't shoot sports, action, or kids. Keep this in mind as you read my review.

For years, my workhorse telephoto zoom was a 70-200 f/2.8 VR (the original version), and for the most part it gave me spectacular results. When I switched from DX to FX in 2012 I continued to use this lens, but its limitations quickly became apparent -- especially bad corners, most evident at the long end of the range, at distance, and with smaller apertures. I knew going in that this lens had such a reputation, but needed to see for myself.

When Nikon announced the f/4 version, I decided it was time to make the switch. The prospect of a smaller, lighter lens, with excellent ergonomics and corner-to-corner image quality, was too much to pass up. Was it a good change? Suffice to say that, although I still have the f/2.8 lens, I'll probably sell it soon because it just sits on my shelf unused.

Compared to the f/2.8 lens, the f/4 version lacks one stop of lens speed (obviously), the heavy metal construction that allows the 2.8 to double as a melee weapon, and the built-in tripod collar. On the other hand, the f/4 has a lot going for it:

- It's much lighter and smaller, taking up less space in my bag and putting less weight on my shoulders on long hikes.
- The build quality is still very good, with the solid plastic construction found in many of Nikon's better lenses, with smoothly damped zoom and focus rings and fixed front and rear lens elements.
- The image quality is very good and much, much better in the corners than the older f/2.8 version.
- The f/4 version focuses much closer, which makes it good for near-macro, and I've read that there is actually better background separation with the f/4 version at minimum focus than the f/2.8 II version at its own minimum focus, because of the 2.8's focal length breathing. Portrait and wedding photographers care about that.
- The tripod collar is not a big loss because the lens is so light. I tried the Nikon add-on collar but the lens/camera combo was actually better balanced without it. I use a combination L-bracket and small rail to get near perfect balance on a tripod.
- The VR system on the f/4 is considerably better than that on the older f/2.8.

I haven't tried the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, which I've read solves the corner issue of the older model, but it's still bigger, heavier, and $1000 more expensive. I don't need the wider aperture, so for me, the f/4 version is perfect.

A lot of people wonder about the 70-300 VR variable aperture zoom (f/4.5-5.6), at about a third of the price, and how the 70-200 f/4 can possibly be of any value in comparison. I had the 70-300 for several years, but hardly used it, and gladly got rid of it. The f/4 lens feels like a professional, precision tool, with smooth tactile operation; the 70-300 feels cheap in comparison, and I really never liked using it. Sure, the 70-300 goes to 300, but you can put a 1.4 TC on the 70-200 and get as good or better an f/5.6 280mm lens. It's no contest unless the price of the f/4 lens precludes its consideration for you.

In conclusion: the f/4 is an excellent lens, and if you don't need the extra stop of lens speed or the tank-like build, is probably the best all-around choice.

11 people found this helpful

Helpful

geewhizpilot

Very Favorable Performance When Compared to f/2.8 Version

Reviewed in the United States on December 16, 2012

*: BlackStyle: 2202Verified Purchase

I own both this new f/4 lens and its f/2.8 VRII counterpart, as well as the older non-VR AFS version. For those of you considering this over the f/2.8 version, I'll compare my experience with the two and point out what I feel are the relevant characteristics:

1. First, the obvious, this lens is $1,000 less expensive and 1-stop slower. If you are shooting film, that 1 stop will probably be important. With today's better digital cameras, that extra stop is largely irrelevant, the ISO setting can be adjusted well above film speeds with no discernible noise.

2. This lens only weighs about half of its f/2.8 counterpart. It's also a bit shorter and because of that, the controls fit a bit nicer in hand. The weight reduction is in part to a reduction in the amount of glass in the lens, both the number of elements and the diameter of the elements but also an increased use of plastic in this lens. I'm not being critical of the use of plastic, just pointing it out.

3. The filter size is 67mm, down from 77mm on the f/2.8. This is a much more common filter size and also more economical.

4. This new lens has a reduced close focusing distance; 3.3 feet as compared to 4.6 feet. If you shoot primarily sports, no big deal, but if you use the lens for nature/people photography it is very much a big deal.

5. Performance. In a nutshell, I don't think you'll be able to tell them apart. That's a big statement because the f/2.8 has always been known as a stellar performer in terms of sharpness and distortion. I made a couple of quick comparisons with the lenses on a tripod and VR off. The center sharpness was superb on both lenses - this new f/4 even outperformed my f/2.8 at certain apertures! Edge sharpness was very comparable on both with the f/2.8 very marginally outperforming this lens at most f-stops. Corner sharpness was a give and take by both -- it just depended on the aperture. In summary, I don't think you'll see the difference. At most working f-stops, f/5.6 to f/11, this lens is superb. At f/4 there's a little softness in the corners but it's hardly worth mentioning. Beyond f/11 or f/16, diffraction is becoming an issue -- but again, it's not a major issue. As far as distortion goes, there's some pincushion and some barrel where you'd expect it but, unless you're shooting brick walls straight on, it's just not an issue. This lens certainly has less distortion than many other zooms out there.

In summary, I'm delighted with this lens! It's performance is superb and I'm very picky about sharpness. I really appreciate the reduction in weight and the lens simply feels better in hand than the longer f/2.8. I'm not about to give up my f/2.8 yet because I also shoot film, but I'll be using this on my digital Nikons from now on. Highly recommended.

396 people found this helpful

Helpful

Koda

Very good lens; only a few times (<1%) that I wish I had brought along the f2.8 instead; portability means more photos!

Reviewed in the United States on December 18, 2014

*: BlackStyle: 2202Verified Purchase

I use this lens on a D750, and honestly the D750 does such a great job at high ISO that I don't miss the extra stop very often as compared to the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II. This lens focuses fast and is so much lighter and more portable, that I find myself carrying it around a lot more, which means I'm capturing more shots! The only times I have missed the extra stop is 1) With macro shots where I would really prefer just a little more play on the depth of field and 2) At the end of the Golden hour after sunset, when there is just a little bit of time when the extra stop would give me better shots at lower ISO (I like to keep my ISO as low as possible).

Other notes:
- As I mentioned, this lens works great with the D750. The f2.8 lens is just so huge on the D750 that it almost looks ridiculous.
- The f4 is NOT weather sealed like the F2.8 is. So keep this in mind if you live in either a dusty or wet environment. No intrusion yet on my lens, but I do like the idea of weather sealing.
- I've had just a little trouble getting the shots I want in a fast-moving environment at late dusk (like kid soccer games).
- The other challenge area is that I do need to get closer to the subject with this lens to get less depth of field for my background.
- I also miss the extra stop sometimes indoors in low light. The D750 does great at high ISO, but I still favor low ISO and try to avoid upping the ISO if at all possible.
- If there is a chance I will be shooting in a low light environment with moving action where I cannot afford to miss shots, I will bring the 2.8 along just in case. On the other hand, when I pull out the f2.8, it suddenly feels so heavy that it might actually slow me down... The f4 is definitely more nimble.

CONCLUSION: If you can only buy one, go with the f4 unless you shoot a lot of fast-moving scenes in late dusk or dark indoors, especially if your camera doesn't do so well at high ISO settings. I'm a huge fan of maximum versatility; hence I would tend to want the 2.8 if I was still shopping around. However, if you dread lugging a 3-lb lens around and therefore leave it at home, what's the point? The f4 is very portable for a 70-200mm, produces amazing quality photos, and is a lens I actually take with me. That means more photos! So, my verdict is this f4 lens. Don't feel like you are settling for less with this lens; you're not.

18 people found this helpful

Helpful

Monte Hackney

Versitile Portrait and Macro Lens

Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2023

*: BlackStyle: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

Bought used from a dealer in Japan. Item was rated as very good condition, and arrived in less time than anticipated in what I would call "like new" condition (though not including case or lens hood). The lens functioned well- and was indeed a true macro 1:1 ratio. Since the focus goes from infinity to macro at just a few inches- and the F stop ranges from 2.8 to small, I anticipate this lens staying on my camera for extended periods of time. I'm very happy with the purchase. The autofocus struggles at the closest range, so I've just set to manual and moved the lens distance to fine focus. There was a small amount of dust in the lens, though not enough to affect the quality. Excellent for any close up photography like flowers or insects, as well as face portraits.

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Fruitielicious

Great because it's much lighter and less "look at me" than the 70-200 2.8 VR II.

Reviewed in the United States on April 9, 2013

*: BlackStyle: 2202Verified Purchase

I originally got this because it's about $1000 cheaper than the 70-200 2.8 VRII. It takes great photo when there's enough light out and much lighter on your arm/shoulder/dignity when you''re running around the street with this. It does take a smaller filter but that's plus since smaller filters are cheaper too. Photos are very sharp and precise with the VR 3 system (claimed 5 stops) and I can definitely feel it's more stable than the 70-200 2.8 VR II.

Focus is always spot-on and smooth.

I ended up replacing this with the 70-200 2.8 VRII because I needed more low light performance while indoors when I can't always use a flash so I can get twice as much light in and I plan to use it for portraits as well so I wanted the extra bokeh (out of focus area blur). I definitely miss the light weight portability of the F/4 every time I use the 2.8. It's almost half the weight and is super sharp, shaper at dead center when compared to the 2.8 even.

Bottom line: great price for a fantastic 70-200 lens unless you need the extra low light performance (but that comes at another $1000 so consider your options!)

Below is a summary of how I use all of my lens today and I hope it will help you find what you are looking for if you have similar needs as mine:

* AF-S 50mm f/1.4: Great for infants and walk-around lens on the street. I use this lens most of the time for infant pictures because 1) I don't want to use flash when infants have their eyes open even if I have a softbox/umbrella. 2) lightweight 3) low light performance at f/1.4. I also uses this when I'm out of the house because it's not in-you-face when you pull it out of you bag so people won't notice you. This lens also makes me move around a bit to be more creative vs. just zoom in and out. 50mm lens makes me think more about the shots.

* AF-S 60mm f/2.8 micro: Great macro lens: I use this for very close up shots. I can get as close to less than an inch away even though the minimum focal length isn't listed as being 1 inch away. You will want good lighting since flash will be useless when you are this close to the subject. I take photos of baby lips, eyes, face, hands and feet, & other objects such as jewelry * watches. Basically any fairly stationary subjects that I want to highlight the details and intentional imperfections/wrinkles, etc. I sometimes wonder if I should use this all the time instead of my 50mm but I find the 50mm better at non-macro shots because it focus faster and lets in 4 times more light.

* AF-S 85mm f/1.8 : I use this most of the time for adult portraits and it has very good low light performance as well. I choose this over the f/1.4 version because the other reviews I've read on the web did not justify the extra $1000 spend for marginal performance improvement and unless I am getting paid to take pictures all the time, I don't see the need to pay the extra cost for the f/1.4. This lens also makes me move around a bit to be more creative vs. just zoom in and out.

* AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8: I use this when I just don't know what kind of pictures I could be taking and need to have zoom & I don't have to move around as much. While I don't take landscape pictures (24mm) often, I will use this for a large group outing, birthday parties when I may need to get a wide shot of a lot of people in a room and be able to have a little bit of zoom capability and not have to walk up so close to the people's face. This allows me to get some candid shots when needed. It's fairly heavy at 2 lbs and huge when you put on the hood so I almost never use this lens when I'm on the street because it attracts a lot of unwanted attention. I wouldn't want this hanging on my neck or shoulders for a long period of time.

* AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 vr2 : This is one of my favorite lens only because I can use it for portraits as well (with some lighting support) and I can get really good candid shots since I can be much farther away 10-20ft from my subjects and able to get a nice picture. I do have to crop at times to get rid of the cluttered background but with the D600 camera, I have enough megapixel details to crop my pictures when needed. This is obviously a monster lens so I avoid taking it for street photos even though I've had some nice pictures and experiences on the street but it's so big... I've had people stopping me asking me if I'm a paparazzi and which celebrity I am stalking..... haha. It's almost over 3 lbs so I definitely wouldn't want this hanging on my neck or shoulders for a long period of time.

* AF-S 70-200mm f/4: this is also a great lens and a fantastic alternative to the 2.8 version. At over $1000 less, this is a bargin and great lens if you're taking photos at good lighting conditions (outdoor, have flash or good indoor lighting). Otherwise it may be problematic for you at F/4.

25 people found this helpful

Helpful

kingcbe

Fantastic telephoto lens - Review from an ex-70-200 2.8 VR II user

Reviewed in the United States on March 18, 2013

*: BlackStyle: 2202Verified Purchase

I am not going to repeat what is already stated in most of the reviews here ..but wanted give my subjective review based on my ownership experience with 70-200 VR1, 70-200 VRII and currently this 70-200 f4 VR3.

70-200 VR1 - It is history. Period. It performed well on DX bodies and focus was good. But the length of the lens and older design was not ergonomically the best and makes it less compelling.

70-200 VR2 - An amazing lens with extremely fast focus. My copy was extremely sharp and focus was almost instantaneous in every lighting situation. However, the weight of the lens forced me to leave it back home on my longer hikes and landscape photoshoots.. there have been occasions where I missed the 120-200 range because this beauty was sitting back at home..all these weight issues despite owning one of the best backpacks available today (fstop)..once this lens is out the bag..you still need to hold with hand, balance it for handheld landscapes and lengthy portrait shoots ..it becomes a tiresome activity after a while.
I was skeptical about moving to 70-200 VR3 f4 ..but wanted to give a try anyways..
My review on 70-200 f4 VR3?
Extremely sharp center to corner, even wide open
Some Chromatic Aberration - which goes away with one click on lens profile using Lightroom 4.
Sharpness doesn't drop with a 1.4x tele converter (1.4x TC) ..recently shot soccer games at 280mm, f5.6 and couldn't tell the difference in sharpness with and without 1.4x TC.
Focus is extremely good ..it is almost on par with 70-200 f2.8..still..I would say 70-200 f4 is only about 95% compared to 70-200 2.8 VR2. If you are shooting in low light all the time ..you might want to do some testing with both the versions and decide which one suits your needs better. For my use, 70-200 f4 suits better.
Weight - the biggest advantage!! This lens is less than half the weight of 70-200 VR2 2.8 ..and I don't even need a tripod collar ..because the balance is better without tripod collar on my D600
Focus breathing - at close focus range ..this lens produces a true 200mm compared to 70-200 VR2 which is effectively ~145mm at close range focus ..this may be a big deal for certain set of users ..who are after tighter portraits and requiring a true 200mm on certain shots.
Image Quality - lot said about this in other reviews and I am not going to repeat it..it is just stellar!!

Accessory recommendation - Please don't buy the expensive tripod collar or even a cheap 3rd party tripod collar..you won't be needing one. This lens is lighter than a 24-70 2.8!!
Overall - this lens provides an excellent, cost effective, back saving alternative for 70-200 2.8 VR2. In fact, this convinced me to sell my 70-200 VR2 2.8 and keep a lighter set up!

104 people found this helpful

Helpful

Tycoop

Great Performance for Relatively Good Price

Reviewed in the United States on January 17, 2015

*: BlackStyle: 2202Verified Purchase

For quite a while now I've owned both this lens and it's bigger brother, the VRII f/2.8...if I had to choose only one of them to own, I would take the f/4 version, hands down.

The f/2.8 version is obviously much more expensive (about a grand), and also much heavier. For that, you get one extra stop of performance...which, if you shoot indoor action and print to larger dimensions (bigger than 8X10), or enjoy playing with shallow DOF, will prove to be beneficial. With the f/4 version, you can bump up ISO one stop at f/4, and get the same shutter speed you'd enjoy had you been able to shoot at f/2.8...the only difference being a marginal decrease in image quality due to the increase in ISO. Unless you shoot very large prints (i.e. a 30 X 20 inch poster off a D4 or D810), a one stop increase in ISO is virtually unnoticeable in modern Nikon DSLRs.

An f/2.8 aperture will also afford one the ability to garner a more shallow depth of field, which can prove useful for artistic purposes.

The f/2.8 version comes with a tripod collar and foot...given it's twice the weight of the f/4, it is more often relegated to tripod use. The f/4 version, with its relatively light weight, is a joy to hand-hold. It can easily be carried around an amusement park all day while you follow the kids from ride to ride. The 2.8 is significantly more cumbersome due to its heft and weight. If you prefer to drop the f/4 on a tripod, you can find a matching collar and tripod foot at most reputable photo shops online (i.e. Really Right Stuff makes a collar designed specifically for the f/4 version).

For me, VR is useful and productive in low light situations when ISO can no longer be raised without suffering significant noise issues. I can't say for sure that VR gives me the ability to gain the advertised 5 stops of speed when shooting with it, but it is a valuable and handy trait to have on the lens. It helps mitigate motion blur at slower shutter speeds.

Image quality is obviously exceptional...if you're so interested in this lens that you're reading this review, then you already know how well this lens handles clarity, contrast, and color distribution. There isn't another zoom lens in this focal range which can compete with Nikon's two 70-200s. Between the f/4 or f/2.8, I can't say which lens delivers better overall picture quality. The main point is that, they are both so good, it doesn't really matter if one of them might be a little better. And, if one of them is a little better, I can't tell.

The way color and contrast is distributed across the image is very life-like...and will be rendered with a "looking through a window" type of realism. Rarely have I been able to detect any color fringing, even in higher contrast, brightly lit situations (i.e. under mid-day sunlight). There is very slight vignetting wide open at f/4, but this dissipates very quickly as you stop down...it's basically unnoticeable at 5.6.

If you enjoy focusing manually, you will be treated to typical Nikon quality. The focus ring turns like you're wading through warm butter...very smooth and precise. When used with zoom in live view, finding your focal point couldn't be easier. When using autofocus, you're treated to a quiet, fast, and precise mechanism. No complaints with the autofocus.

This lens takes 67mm filters (as opposed to the 77mm size its bigger brother requires). I simply use a step-up ring from 67-77, so that I only need to purchase one size of 77mm filters for both lenses.

For practically any casual use I can think of, I would be very comfortable recommending the f/4 version over the 2.8 version all of the time. Unless your needs are very specific (of the kind I mention before at the beginning of this review), the f/4 version, and its much more forgiving price tag and weight, is all you need to deliver excellent photos in this zoom range.

18 people found this helpful

Helpful

Cristian I.

Perfecto

Reviewed in the United States on February 9, 2024

*: BlackStyle: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

In perfect condition 10/10

Helpful

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Need customer service?

‹ See all details for Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens

5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens

›

Customer reviews

Customer reviews

Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens

Top positive review

Top critical review

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens › Customer reviews

Customer reviews

Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens

Top positive review

Top critical review

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens

›

Customer reviews