New Nikkon 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR

Nikkon is comming out with a new lens a 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR Macro

Intresting that it has VR, f/2.8, & close focus ca 0.314m

More info...in Japanise att:

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/121/121228.shtml

lambis

Hopefully this will happen soon. My ailing and much used 105mm is about to ask me for its retirement plan. the VR will only be a good improvement for my available light insects, bugs and critters photography top side, but the AF-S will make the worl of a difference for u/w work. I kind of suspect that lens is not a rumour. when it first show up (leaked) on the net, it made sense, they just went trough a major design change on their macro flash the SB-R200, so to do this and strap it on a old steam powered autofocus clunker like the actual 105mm, DUH! .

Now why not a 40mm macro for those of us who dwell in the cold murky reality of northern cold water diving <_< and for Pete sake make us a straight 9mm (not a Beretta, a lens )

I do think that this will be a great lens Jean for top & UW

Why not 9,5mm :-)

You can say on the check in in airports. I shoot with 9.5mm :-)

BTW I am aslo looking closer to the new 18-200 VR lens from nikon

A great traverer all around lens

Lambis

The 18-200mm did not impress me at all, very expensive for a entry level quality lens, its like a swiss army knive, it does every thing but nothing very well (except open wine bottle ).

Not a good choice for the money IMO.

I thought this had been "leaked" somewhere before...can't recall exactly...and someone concluded that it was a PS hoax. So I'm as skeptical as I am about reports of the D3h.

Although if it's real, cool!

I'd be intensely curious about how well the VR works U/W. I did some shots with a 70-200 on a ball head set to "sloppy", (kind of a sim of being underwater) and about half of the time the VR seemed to make it worse.

All the best, James

I also recall this being exposed as a hoax. This is the same picture as before. I remember it because it had a black background unlike the Nikon photos which are white. This photo has a slight white halo around it which made me think it was a fake from the start.

A 105mm AFS VR would be great for us underwater shooters though. We use macro lenses differently than the typical flower/bug photographers that buy thousands of macro lenses from Nikon. Unfortunately I don't see it happenning. VR and AFS isn't all that usefull for normal macro shooting. Most normal macro work is done on a tripod and focusing isn't by AF but manual focus by moving the camera. Normal macro subjects don't move much like fish.

This isn't to say that there aren't advantages to VR in normal macro work where yopu could shoot f16 for max DOF and hand-hold over larger ranges of shutter speed. But most macro photographers don't care about this because they just blast the subject with enough light to shoot high apertures. We do the same thing UW. Nikon's new ring flash is more useful than VR for normal shooting. So I don't see a clamor for this kind of lens outside UW shooting that would drive the market.

It doesn't hurt to dream though.

P.s. as I'm sure you're aware James Nikon recommends that you turn off VR when on a tripod. Perhaps VR doesn't compensate well for high frequency jitter from a tripod as opposed to low frequency hand holding. Depending on how sloppy you were this could be the problem.

I think the original VR on 80-400 is not compatible with tripod use but the more recent VR is ok on tripod. However I am not sure how useful it would be underwater as I don't see myself using very low shutterspeed when shooting macro with strobes.

I do like the 18-200 quite a bit. Granted it is not nearly as good as 70-200VR, it is relatively small and light and make it a pretty good walk around casual lens for party etc when I don't want to carry a big heavy setup.

Some rumors are hoax but some are true. Keep faith with Nikon and your wish may come true

<snip>P.s. as I'm sure you're aware James Nikon recommends that you turn off VR when on a tripod.  Perhaps VR doesn't compensate well for high frequency jitter from a tripod as opposed to low frequency hand holding. Depending on how sloppy you were this could be the problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right you are. I wanted to try out how well VR performed in the kind of "fluid" motions we get underwater, so I put it on top of a Kirk BH1 with a faint trace of drag. The resulting support was negligable, if I had let go of the camera it would have taken a nose dive into a tripod leg.

So, essentially, it was a hand-held with a bit of drag. Results were either what I'd expect from hand held/VR (great), or, tripod clamped/VR (hideous), about 50% each. Nothing to predict which way it would go.

FWIW, ssra30, I haven't found any version of VR that works on a tripod, Nikon's claims to the contrary. I even turn it off on a monopod.

All the best, James

FWIW, ssra30, I haven't found any version of VR that works on a tripod, Nikon's claims to the contrary. I even turn it off on a monopod.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would not know since 18-200VR is the first VR lens I own. I am a bit curious about the tripod bit. I can't imagine people using the 200-400VR or 300VR handheld and they would most likely either use monopod or better yet, tripod. If that is the case and VR/VRII does not work well on tripod, why bother with VR at all (not that I am in the process of getting either lens, just curious mind wanting to know ).

I can see two niche for image stabilization (VR, IS, AS) in UW-Photography. Hand hold low light wide angle (wreck or under ice) pictures without tripod and macro pictures with blue background (slow shutter speed).

The only image stabilized macro primes I know are KonicaMinolta compatible lens . The same is true for wide angle lens.

Cheers

Marcell

If there is in fact a replacement for the 105 Nikkor micro I wonder if the 60 Nikkor micro will also get an update?

The rumors are only about a new 105 (and they are only rumors at this point). I don't think there will be a replacement for the 60.

Luiz

I would not know since 18-200VR is the first VR lens I own. I am a bit curious about the tripod bit. I can't imagine people using the 200-400VR or 300VR handheld and they would most likely either use monopod or better yet, tripod. If that is the case and VR/VRII does not work well on tripod, why bother with VR at all (not that I am in the process of getting either lens, just curious mind wanting to know ).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, if you turn off the VR all you have is an AF lens. With great glass that is fantastic on a tripod. (tripod? I use a tripod more underwater than topside!)

The VR is good to have around in case you do want to hand hold.

The 300 2.8 is a hand holdable lens. You can't keep it up there forever, but for a minute at a time, it's not a problem. The biggest use for this is spot news, or places you need the reach, but want to be real mobile and can't carry a monopod. And with the VR, you can easily get away with it. The weight is tolerable with good body position, even if they seem to be getting heavier (what's up with that? Carbon fiber and all, you'd think they would be lighter).

In the film days, the 300 2.8 would be the first lens that dissappeared out of the locker, and you had to have a lot of seniority to get one every day. Now, more often than not, it sits there unclaimed...it's too long. The 200 2.0 VR has taken it's place.

All the best, James