Some people take this all too seriously. If you want to calibrate your monitor, go for it. If you don't, fine. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder not some know-it-all on a forum, including me. I think I'm done with this forum nonsense. I'll be out taking second rate photos with my third rate gear and enjoying them on my fourth rate uncalibrated monitor if you need me.
I owned the 40mm and liked it but sold it and bought the 105 f/2.8 and I LOVE it. I've had it for over a year and it has never disappointed me. It never leaves my D5500. It's very sharp, has a decent working distance, is cheaper than the venerated 200mm micro and has been very durable. I'm not easy on my equipment and this lens is very well built. It has a deep, sturdy lens hood too. I can't sing it's praises enough. If I could only own one lens (and I own/have owned quite a few), this might be the one I choose. All of the recent closeups on my flickr page were taken w/ this combo. (
https://www.flickr.com/photos/8309900@N02/)
I use my D7200 exclusively with my 200-500mm and I have U1 programmed for birds in flight and U2 programmed for wildlife. This way as I'm out and about and I see one or the other I can quickly switch to either/or from manual (where I normally shoot) so as not to miss quickly disappearing opportunities. I often adjust the parameters from the default settings on the fly if necessary but in a pinch it's ready to shoot.
It might be the best you can expect. That's unfortunately not a lens known for sharpness.
Yes, Canon is way better than Nikon.
Same thing happened to me.
I have it and I LOVE it. Almost never leaves one of my cameras.
I have some pixels for sale in the buy/sell forum. Great deal!
True, but it isn't always a quality issue but an eventual compatibility issue.
Stick with Nikon lenses. If not, we'll hear you complaining here later.
That's why I buy Nikon lenses.
Nikon. Or you'll be crying on this forum in a few years.