I've used Micro-Nikkors since 1978. The Micro-Nikkor-P 55/3.5 on Kodachrome 25 loaded into a Nikon F2a "defined Sharp".
I was loaned the "Micro-Nikkor 105 F2.8 ED IF VR" (too funny, Nikon just loves acronyms. ED means Extra Dollars). My friend with a D850 felt the lens "was just not sharp". I currently have the Micro-Nikkor 200/4 AF-D, 60/2.8 AF-D, 105/2.8 AF-D, and Micro-Nikkor-Zoom 70~180. The latter is Nikon's version of the Vivitar Flat-Field 90~180 Zoom. The AF-D Micro-Nikkor 200/4 "Defines Sharp" for me. The 60/2.8 is sharp. The AF-D 105/2.8 - does not touch the 200/4.
On my Df, The new 105 was "okay", but seemed soft at the corners and not as sharp as the 60/2.8 and 200/4. The latter two lenses came out 12 years earlier than the new 105/2.8. Doing some searches- the DXOMARK tests seemed to verify this first impression. The 60 and 200 tested with higher resolution, lower distortion, and less CA than the 105/2.8. The latter got "higher marks"- a Kickback? Grade on the curve for modern lenses? I could not see it from the performance numbers.
Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF on Nikon D800E vs Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D on Nikon D810 vs Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED on Nikon D800E | DxOMark
I need to do more testing- but the 105/2.8 VR seemed to have a slight focus shift towards the camera when stopped down. The DXOmark tests state that best performance was at F2.8. I'm not sure if the concept of floating elements apply to an IF lens, but "floating element" was not listed as a feature. Focus at distance seemed less sharp then using the lens close-up. The Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 introduced a floating element for this reason. I also have that lens.
Anyone else have and use this lens? Is it time to send to Nikon for a "CLA"? Looking at the comparisons between it and the 200/4 and 60/2.8 on DXOmark- I'm wondering why this lens gets such high marks.
I was loaned the "Micro-Nikkor 105 F2.8 ED IF VR" (too funny, Nikon just loves acronyms. ED means Extra Dollars). My friend with a D850 felt the lens "was just not sharp". I currently have the Micro-Nikkor 200/4 AF-D, 60/2.8 AF-D, 105/2.8 AF-D, and Micro-Nikkor-Zoom 70~180. The latter is Nikon's version of the Vivitar Flat-Field 90~180 Zoom. The AF-D Micro-Nikkor 200/4 "Defines Sharp" for me. The 60/2.8 is sharp. The AF-D 105/2.8 - does not touch the 200/4.
On my Df, The new 105 was "okay", but seemed soft at the corners and not as sharp as the 60/2.8 and 200/4. The latter two lenses came out 12 years earlier than the new 105/2.8. Doing some searches- the DXOMARK tests seemed to verify this first impression. The 60 and 200 tested with higher resolution, lower distortion, and less CA than the 105/2.8. The latter got "higher marks"- a Kickback? Grade on the curve for modern lenses? I could not see it from the performance numbers.
Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF on Nikon D800E vs Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D on Nikon D810 vs Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED on Nikon D800E | DxOMark
I need to do more testing- but the 105/2.8 VR seemed to have a slight focus shift towards the camera when stopped down. The DXOmark tests state that best performance was at F2.8. I'm not sure if the concept of floating elements apply to an IF lens, but "floating element" was not listed as a feature. Focus at distance seemed less sharp then using the lens close-up. The Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 introduced a floating element for this reason. I also have that lens.
Anyone else have and use this lens? Is it time to send to Nikon for a "CLA"? Looking at the comparisons between it and the 200/4 and 60/2.8 on DXOmark- I'm wondering why this lens gets such high marks.
Last edited: