105 mm lens: What is the real difference between the 105mm Nikon lenses ?
1155483
AF DC-NIKKOR 105mm f/2D this is a specialized portrait lens that will allow soft focus effects The other lenses are for close-up pictures or portraits. 105 mm gives a good perspective for portraits and you can blur the background. The reproduction ratio means how close to life size the actual image is (1:1 is life size & 1:2 is 1/2 size). Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8 this is a manual focus lens with max reproduction ratio of 1:2 AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED This lens is autofocus with a reproduction ratio of 1:1. It also has the VR feature so that is why it costs more.
31789
I would go to the website and see what info you can find there. They may have both lenses there. You can also try to go to a photo review site such as Ken Rockwell to see what they have to say.
1687599
Michael - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I just educated myself on the 10-22 mm and decided that is the lens for me! Now to save up... :)
1239593
The focal length being 105mm will give you a sharp picture through the entire range. It's not the most durable lens since it has a plastic mount. The 18 200mm has a metal mount. It's probably a better all around lens but it does get soft in places. For me it seems to be around 135mm but it seems to help if you get the shutter speed around 1/500. I had the 18 105mm for two years and the mount broke on me after dropping from a 2 1/2 foot speaker onto carpet. Cost $65 to fix.
19139
I use a NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR which is a little bigger than your 18-105 and it fits comfortably with room to spare. With the lens hood however, it is a squeeze. I suggest that you remove the hood and put it in separately.
2251841
I do own a 18-50mm on my Rebel.. and this one is for my Nikon... But I really can't distinguish any differences since I am pretty new to the hobby. But I find it very easy now to just have one lens on all the time .. with my canon I would always have to keep changing from my 15-50mm to my zoom lens a lot and it takes too much time plus you have to carry another lens with you. So far so good.. its a really awesome lens.. and all my friends think its cool!
1864064
The 24-105mm will absolutely kill anything you can get out of the 28-135. It's not just about sharpness - which will improve in the 24-105. It's also the contrast and the colour rendition. Believe me its chalk and cheese. Having said that, the 24-105 L IS is still not in the same class as either of Canon's L 70 - 200's either f4 or 2.8. But longer those longer lenses are easier to build. At the long end (200+) Canon rules.
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
1380695
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6.
2165328
Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat. Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value... » Read More Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat. « Show Less
801145
I would also like to hear about this from someone who knows. I was planning on getting the kit lens and buying the 70-300mm VR Nikkor lens with it thinking that the VR technology makes them superior, but most people are very unimpressed with the kit lens. One reviewer was raving about Sigma lenses for the D90, such as Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. I am now seriously rethinking my lens purchase plan.
1114925
The 15-85 is a BETTER lens for optical quality and IQ. The fact that it is wider is a bonus.
596819
I am not sure as I am a canon shooter. The case dimensions converted from cm to inches is 4.33079inches by 5.511811, I hope that helps. The description of the case says it is for a standard zoom lens, similar to 24-70mm/f2.8. I believe that is a shorter lens than your Nikon 105mm.
709668
the width. Although they both offer similar of not identical results (if you know how to use manual) the 50mm is the better one when i comes to a wide angle lens. However if you have one you don't need the other.
2004146
Definitely a newbie question, because only you can answer it. You never "need" to buy an additional lens. For years, many photographers shot with just a 50mm prime. Today, a good consumer zoom like the 18-105mm will satisfy a good 90% or more of shooting needs. However, if you desire greater creative control, better image quality (the color, contrast and corner-to-corner sharpness of the 35mm is noticeably superior to the zoom), then you might consider purchasing additional lenses. Of course, the differences are not night and day. The 18-105mm is an excellent lens, so the differences I describe are incremental. Take a look at the review on cameralabs.com to see if the differences are significant enough for you to spend the additional money.
1476282
Very strange, but they have the same lens listed twice! I was wondering this too..but they're the same lens. Sorry for the late response!
659561
I would suggest getting the 105 mm macro if you want a true macro for closeup photography with any Nikon camera. I've used this lens for four years and have been extremely satisfied with sharpness and bokeh. At extreme macro settings, autofocus should be turned off, as it has difficulty searching for focal points. A 1:1 macro ratio is achieved when end of lens is approximately 5 1/2 inches from the subject.