Nikon 105mm lens

Does anyone have experience with the Nikon 105mm 1:2.8 G ED IF S VR lens?

I am especially concerned with the VR aspect and how well it works underwater. I have a D80 with the Ikelite housing.

Does anyone have experience with the Nikon 105mm 1:2.8 G ED IF S VR lens?

I am especially concerned with the VR aspect and how well it works underwater. I have a D80 with the Ikelite housing.

If you are using flash VR is unnecessary underwater, and it is a large drain on the battery I turn it off. I have got some good pics with this lens http://www.flickr.com/photos/diverdon/2425961834/sizes/l/ Focus is quick, but unless using a focus light underwater it is not always accurate. Others claim better results than I.

Do a search on this site for Nikon 105 vr

There are a number of threads on this lens.

Although I have not taken my new Nikon 105 VR Micro-nikkor underwater yet, I would disagree with DiverDon's statement that VR is not necessary if you are shooting with flash. I virtually always shoot with flash and can visualize several situations in which the VR would be useful.

If you want to make a picture with an ambient light background, such as a blue water color background, then the VR could be very useful in keeping the edges of the subject sharp IF the shutter speed necessary to get the background rendition you want is below about 1/125th.

VR can help you keep the subject precisely framed at higher than 1:1 magnifications.

And VR, by keeping the subject more precisely in one position, may also help the auto-focus system perform with greater accuracy.

I will be in Bali during August and September and will shoot some comparison shots with the new VR 105 vs the older 105. Recently, working with a good machine shop, we were able to make a manual focus gear for my 105 VR that also has the capability of turning the VR on and off while in the housing. So I will be able to shoot comparison shots of the very same subject with lens with the VR both on and off.

I am much less concerned about battery consumption than that the VR's moving of the lens elements may actually result in slightly lower sharpness than with the older 105 where the elements are centered more perfectly all of the time and not moving.

The Bali trip will also give me my first chance to test a dome port adapter that puts an older Aquatica 8" dome on my Seacam housing. This allows me to shoot underwater with Nikon's new 14-24mm which does not fit through the port opening of Seacam's own dome ports. And try new zoom and manual focus gears for both the 14-24mm and the new 24-70mm.

Anyone wishing to get together with me whiile I am in Bail and see the new toys, and how they work, should be able to contact me via Michael Cortenbach's Bali Hai Dive Academy with whom I will be diving, except during the ten days, August 18-28, that I am doing a Komodo cruise aboard the liveaboard dive boat the Adelaar. While on dive trips I do check email, but only occasionally (weekly or less) as I prefer to just enjoy the diving and people I meet rather than spend too much time in front of a computer.

Fred

I agree with Fred. I have used the 105mm for a while now, Wetpixel Review 2006, and have found the VR a very useful feature. I always leave it on.

In Thailand earlier in the year I made the mistake of accidentally switching it off when loading my camera into the housing. I then spent a dive shooting a fusiliers with cleaner wrasse in their mouths at a cleaning station and was very disappointed after the shots. I was shooting at about 1/30th or 1/40th, settings that with the VR I find give close to 100% reliably sharp images with these sorts of subjects. My confidence in the lens's VR, after 100s of dives with it, is such that I (stupidly) did not check the shots at high magnification.

Alex

Here is a crop of one of the images - showing the subject movement because of lack of VR. I have shot similar shots so many times with VR on and not had this ghosting.