Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I have 9 different true macro lenses from 55 to 180mm from various makers, some AF, others MF. All will give you good results as long as your technique is good.there will be differences in features & build quality though. I have yet to find a sub par macro lens, regardless of the maker. They are all good optically.You will see that some test better, but be advised that those differences are with bench testing, which isn't applicable to real world shooting. What's more important is the focal length & the 105 is one of the more desirable lengths. Buy used or refurbished to save some money is budget is a factor...

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

You will not be disappointed. It is a great lens. I use it mostly for Flowers and Bugs. I have also used it for portraits. It is n awesome lens. Enjoy it!

orchid


Orchid

clgonzo

An Excellent lens for macro and portrait photography.

peterg Loc: Santa Rosa, CA

An amazing lens. For many outside closeups (e.g. bugs) without a tripod, I often autofocus, via back-button focusing, until focusing in the ballpark. Stop autofocusing. Then, slowly rock my body for final focusing. Click.

clgonzo

What is the meta data regarding your two flower pictures.My guess is your F stop was 4.5 or 5.6. I would love to see the same shots at F16 or higher.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

yes, good point. just gives you the illusion of a longer focal length, i guess.

JennT Loc: South Central PA

It is mighty sharp for use as a portrait lens-- which tells you how wonderful it is for everything else!

ligneus

That is so but it is customary to refer to what lens would give you that field of view, how else could you say it?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

That it gives you the FOV of a (fill in the blank) mm, or that it gives the equivalent FOV of a xxxx mm lens on an FX camera

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I shoot Canon gear now, so am obviously not using the current versions of the Nikkor 105mm....

But I've used vintage versions of it in the past and it's a legendary quality macro lens. You should find it fantastic. Macro lenses around 90 to 105mm focal length are a good compromise of good working distance from your subjects, yet still reasonably hand-holdable.

Like any macro lens, you'll have to experiment with balancing shallow depth of field against using a very small apertures that cause loss of fine detail due to diffraction. Might want to learn about using "focus stacking" (check out Helicon Focus software website for more info).

If you got the VR version of the lens, don't expect too much from the image stabilization at the lens' highest magnification levels. It's just limited how much stabilization is able to do, at high mags... though it can be quite effective when using the lens for lower magnification shots or non-macro purposes. Monopods and tripods continue to be very useful accessories for macro work. Macro flash is another way to deal with the challenges of high magnification work.

Some folks use the 105mm and other macro lenses for portraiture, too. Personally I think many of them are actually too sharp for that purpose. Even a 17 year old model with "perfect" skin who's just spent an hour with talented make-up artist is likely to need some retouching. Your mother-in-law might really hate portraits of her made with a macro lens. (And I believe there's a Nikkon 105mm "DC" specifically made for portraiture, instead of macro... I sometimes use a Tamron 60/2.0 macro/portrait that has larger aperture than most macro lenses and is a little more forgiving, too, but is a crop-only/DX lens.)

Have fun learning to use the lens. Overall it's a fantastic macro lens.

If you're brand new to macro, it's a huge and diverse specialization with a lot to learn. There are some great books out there by a number of authors that I highly recommend. If you can find it, start with John Shaw's "Close-ups in Nature", which is as close as you'll get to a macro "Bible". But there are more excellent books from Jim Brandenberg, Mary and Joe MacDonald, Nial Benvie, Bryan Peterson, Heather Angel, Jim Zuckerman and more. Many (most? all?) of these are nature and wildlife photographers... but the same macro principles and techniques apply to shooting most any type of small subject.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I bet those actually used a smaller aperture than you think. Depends upon how small the subject was and how high the magnification.

Depth of field is always a struggle with higher magnification shots. You have to balance using small f-stops against having adequate light and, perhaps more importantly, problems with diffraction that are caused by using really small stops.

For example, below image of a tiny, newly hatched garden snail was shot at approx. 3X life size and at the smallest aperture the lens offers... f/16... which becomes an "effective f/64" with this particular lens at such a high level of magnification:



A Canon MP-E 65mm lens was used for the above. That's an especially high magnification, manual focus-only macro lens. Itn fact, it doesn't focus to infiinty or anywhere close... The least it can do is 1:1, where most other macro lenses leave off. And the highest mag possible with it is 5:1 (more if macro extension tubes are added). The MP-E 65mm is used where macro bellows were needed in the past. But, at higher magnifications the lens extends dramatically and that in turn changes the "effective" aperture. At that highest setting, it's f/16 setting makes for an "effective f/96". Even then, DoF is very shallow...plus it's always a struggle to keep from having problems with diffraction and difficult to get adequate lighting (an MR-14 Ringlite was used for the above).

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

There is a lot of commentary here about apertures, focal length, and angle of view. It is often forgotten that getting close with Nikkor micro lenses can cause changes from the headline specs.

For example, the 105mm f/2.8 AFD is 105mm on FX at infinity and is f/2.8 at infinity. At macro distance, this lens acts as an 80mm focal-length lens. Likewise, the aperture becomes f/5 at life-size, courtesy of Nikon.

A note on my experience with my G version: At macro distances, you may find auto focus won't happen, especially if there is little contrast between subject and background. This is not a defect. Of course, manual focus comes to the rescue in this case. Sometimes the lens is unresponsive due to user failure to reset the switches, for example, from MF to AF.

Pixtaker

I have a 105mm Macro and love it. It was amazing how much I started seeing in the world of small once I had this lens on camera. Just sitting still and watching your environment will open up a lot of photographic opportunities with that lens. Have Fun!

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Here is a shot I posted recently in the "True Macro" forum. I used a 1980's manual focus macro lens. As attested by the eye facets, focus was pretty much spot on... Just an example of the fact that technique matters....If you click on the "download", & then click on the image, it will show larger.. Shot at life sized with a slight crop.

(Download)

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

DC lenses are not a solution for problematic skin in portraits. These lenses retain subject sharpness and soften the out-of-focus areas, for a chosen DoF.

I've been researching the 85mm DC and 105mm DC as a possible buy. DC allows added control of the areas outside the area of focus. That is, you can further defocus in front of or behind the sharp focus the DC lens provides, regardless of aperture short of the whole frame being in focus.

Unlike the DC controls, a soft-focus lens -- Nikon has made three -- softens the whole frame.

On a lighthearted note, yesterday I saw a portrait of a woman, but the image had been photobombed by a german shepherd defecating in the background. See Dogtime.com, item 7. A DC lens could have saved this shot.