01-16-2011, 12:23 PM
[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1295175174' post='5570']
I'm new to Digital SLR photography, and to lens reviews. One of the challenges seems to be balancing users' personal experiences with lenses with what the lens reviews reveal - or should that be 'seem to' reveal? I say that because the review here of the Nikon lens (AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR) is very positive, with 4.5 stars for each of optical quality, mechanical quality and price / performance, and highly recommended:
"In terms of sheer performance the AF-S 105mm f/2.8G was able to beat its already very good predecessor by a small margin. The resolution is excellent straight from the max. aperture setting and the peak performance is reached between f/4 and f/5.6. Typical for a macro lens the Nikkor is virtually free of distortions and vignetting is usually nothing to worry about. CAs are low at large aperture settings but increase to comparatively high levels at and beyond f/8 - in absolute terms CAs remain moderate though. The mechanical quality of the lens is very good."
Is it that you're basing judgements on different criteria?
I'm very interested because I have the Nikon 105mm micro lens high on my list of next buys... but have a £100 discount offer on the 85mm micro! That didn't review as well here, mainly because of the vignetting.
Ian
[/quote]
You can disregard my opinion, obviously. But it is based on many reviews, many personal accounts, my "hunches" and what I have seen in images. I just can not be all that impressed by this Nikkor, except that it is well put together.
Even though photozone found exceptionally high resolution figures, many swear that it is less in sharpness feel and bokeh than for instance the Tamron 90mm. Some reviews show it to be relatively poor in contrast.
And then it is just so expensive (you can get the awesome Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro for that price).
Still, there are no really bad macro lenses... so you will always get ok results. I just fail to be impressed by thisone.
I'm new to Digital SLR photography, and to lens reviews. One of the challenges seems to be balancing users' personal experiences with lenses with what the lens reviews reveal - or should that be 'seem to' reveal? I say that because the review here of the Nikon lens (AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR) is very positive, with 4.5 stars for each of optical quality, mechanical quality and price / performance, and highly recommended:
"In terms of sheer performance the AF-S 105mm f/2.8G was able to beat its already very good predecessor by a small margin. The resolution is excellent straight from the max. aperture setting and the peak performance is reached between f/4 and f/5.6. Typical for a macro lens the Nikkor is virtually free of distortions and vignetting is usually nothing to worry about. CAs are low at large aperture settings but increase to comparatively high levels at and beyond f/8 - in absolute terms CAs remain moderate though. The mechanical quality of the lens is very good."
Is it that you're basing judgements on different criteria?
I'm very interested because I have the Nikon 105mm micro lens high on my list of next buys... but have a £100 discount offer on the 85mm micro! That didn't review as well here, mainly because of the vignetting.
Ian
[/quote]
You can disregard my opinion, obviously. But it is based on many reviews, many personal accounts, my "hunches" and what I have seen in images. I just can not be all that impressed by this Nikkor, except that it is well put together.
Even though photozone found exceptionally high resolution figures, many swear that it is less in sharpness feel and bokeh than for instance the Tamron 90mm. Some reviews show it to be relatively poor in contrast.
And then it is just so expensive (you can get the awesome Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro for that price).
Still, there are no really bad macro lenses... so you will always get ok results. I just fail to be impressed by thisone.