MF-Nikkor 105mm - 2.5 or 2.8 Micro ?

[noumin]

Hi all

There's been a similar discussion recently, but I really like to hear more about what you guys think about the issue, so here it goes :

I want to complement my MF-Nikkor Set with a 105mm lens. I'm doing mostly nature/landscapes and architecture
with an occasional close-up shot of some details. Now, I know that the 2.5/105mm is a legendary lens which, I think, would serve me very well for general shooting, for close-ups I could use step-up rings. But what about the 2.8/105mm Micro-Nikkor ? I could forget about the step-up rings and use it as an allround lens, but how does it compare to the 2.5/105mm in distances from a few meters up towards infinity ?

Any input is welcome.

Joerg

 

[peri24]

i have no experience with 105 2,8 micro, but my 105 2,5 it's a stellar lens, i only wish it was faster, to me 2,5 it´s not that fast sometimes.
I've been using it as all round lens and its performance is good from close distance to infinity, but i think it shines working with close distances and for a non macro 105mm lens being able to focus a bit less than 1 meter is more than adequate for almost any subject, apart from typical macro stuff.
I think it depens if you are planning to do heavy macro stuff but if its not your case a 105mm 2,5 will do the job almost any time, and you can purchase an extension tube for those macro moments and use it with any other lens aswell. You will save money and get an astonishing performer.
I would only substitute my 105mm 2,5 for something faster, knowing i would lose the sharpest nikorr lens in my bag.

 

[fotch]

I have both, obtaining the Nikkor 105mm/2.5 about 25 years ago, and the Micro Nikkor 105mm/2.8 2 years ago. While both are excellent lens, they are different in some regards. The Micro is heavier, which doesn't bother me for close ups as often I am using a tripod anyway, however, for all around use, would be annoying. The regular 105/2.5 also seems to be faster to focus, and for non close ups, my first choice in this focal length.

So, for me, the Micro is mainly used for its close up ability. I have not compared regular photos side by side, since I doubt that for regular use there would be a significant difference. Also, I have few shots, other than close ups, with the Micro.

I added the 105mm Micro to my older 55mm Micro because I liked it so much. Would like to get the 200mm Micro next

My 2 cents.

 

[narsuitus]

I, too, own both the 105mm f/2.8 macro and the 105mm f/2.5 Nikon lenses. Both are excellent lenses. I tend to use the macro more because I can use it for portraits and macro work. However, when I am only doing portraits and not shooting macro, I carry and use the 105 f/2.5.

 

[2F/2F]

If speed/DOF differences are of no import, I would always go for the macro lens, as it is more versatile. For a time, I used the Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro as one of my standard lenses, and was very happy with it at all focusing distances.

This being said, the 105 2.5 is an outstanding lens, and they are plentiful and cheap. If putting extension rings on will not a a big hindrance to you when you are shooting, I would just save the dough and pick up on older one (pre-AI if you have a pre-AI camera, or AI if you don't).

 

[noumin]

Thank you all for your input.
It seems as if I can´t go wrong with either of them, but I think that, at least for the time beeing, I will choose the 2.5 + extension tube and see how I go along with it. It´s less weight, less cost and I can use the extension tube (extension tube not step-up ring, I was mixing things up) on my other lenses as well.
The reason why the 2.8 micro came up is actually quite similar to fotchs´ , I use a 2.8/55mm micro as my standard lens, it´s a phenomenal lens and I like it a lot, so I thought at 105mm the same would happen. Well, maybe, if funds become available ...

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

I own a Nikkor 105/2.5 AI, a super great lens for portrait and general use. The Micro 105/2.8 is a superb lens, but for portrait is a bit to sharp, for my taste.
Ciao.
Vincenzo