a new 105mm macro lens?

zoran

The Nikon 105mm Macro lens is a fairly old lens, is there a possibility that there might be an update for this lens?

Gjesdal

Apart from the focusing could be a bit faster what would be the reason to replace it?

I can't imagine Nikon would replace a lens just because it is a bit old.

Killerbob

I think as Nikon gets the technology (which we saw in the new 300mm) down, they will indeed start refreshing their range. They are adding Nano Crystal Coat to the new lenses, as well as VR, hopefully improving them in the process. The 105mm and the 135mm could both do with a dbl. make-over, as well as VR to the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm...

Then I might be in for a refresh:)

tcole1983

I would buy one now...it is a steal. The price has come down pretty good.

What aspects need to be updated? Focus speed and new vr are about all it could do. It is still probably my favorite lens though. I just took all my son's newborn pictures with it yesterday.

JonMcGuffin

Considering the 105 F2.0 and 135 F2.0 DC's are significantly older, this reasoning would indicate that we're going to get an update to these very soon. Age of the lens does not seem to be the best indicator of replacement as far as Nikon is concerned. Also this optic is still considered one of the very sharpest in the Nikon offering so it just doesn't make sense to replace this lens.

spraynpray

@tcole1983: Congrats!

tcole1983

@tcole1983: Congrats!

Thanks! ;-)

NSXTypeR

I think the 200mm F4 would be updated first before any updates come to the 105mm Macro.

WestEndFoto

I would agree with that. It would be a hard act to follow. It is sharper than my 85 1.4G.

tcole1983

It could be updated, but it is a macro lens so I don't believe the focus speed will ever be lightning fast. The vr is old but it does have it. It has nano coating. Internal focus. It is fx. Mine always amazes me. Shoot it at f2.8 and it always comes out perfectly doing portraits. It is a pretty forgiving lens with vr. I am the most comfortable shooting it out of any of my lenses. I just know a majority of my shots with it will be spot on and sharp. If I have the room it is my go to portrait lens. And I want to say it can be had for $650 or so now...which is a deal from the $1000 it used to be. I almost want to buy another just talking about it ;-)

rmp

Could the new mirrorless FX be a reason for lens upgrades: smaller, lighter like the new 300?

Msmoto

My current copy (AF-S VR MICRO NIKKOR 105/2.8G IF-ED) seems to be way ahead of me, so, I have no need for something better.

zoran

Thank you all for your views but i must say... why would they lower the price so much if they are not thinking of replacing? Isn't lowering the price a sign that a lens is at the end of tis lifetime?

Msmoto

Nikon may be just attempting to increase sales. Maybe they have a large inventory of parts to make this lens, or the complete lens in excess, thus moving these rather than paying for the investment costs of inventory may be what they have decided to do.

WestEndFoto

Or production costs have declined and they are making more of a profit by increasing unit sales.

tcole1983

Is there a reason you started this thread Zoran? I mean what about the old model do you feel needs updated? Besides it being "old"?

NSXTypeR

I think he just was interested in a purchase and wanted some input on whether or not it'd get replaced soon.

PB_PM

Thank you all for your views but i must say... why would they lower the price so much if they are not thinking of replacing? Isn't lowering the price a sign that a lens is at the end of tis lifetime?

Prices of the 105mm macro started dropping a few years back after production moved from Japan to China.

tcole1983

I think he just was interested in a purchase and wanted some input on whether or not it'd get replaced soon.

If that is the case buy it. Amazon just had it for $734 new last week. It is a pretty good deal at that price. It is an amazing lens as is though...no real need to wait for something better at this point IMO.

My point being if they released a brand new version tomorrow with its premium price tag that would probably push it over $1000, what could be added? Newest vr, maybe faster focus, newest coating and possibly slightly lighter. But honestly there isn't much to improve upon. I honestly can't see it being a largely wowing update like say the 300 f4 that previously didn't have vr or any of the other fancy stuff.

CoreyGross

I just made the jump from Canon to Nikon. With Canon I would use an 85 1.8 at weddings to grab good candids, I've been eyeing the 105 because of it's macro for details/ring shots. I'm curious on how it's performance would be for also doubling as a mid-telephoto, essentially doing what my 85 1.8 did for me, tracking somewhat moving subjects in somewhat dim situations. Does it being Macro make this difficult, would I find it hunting more? Seems like the AF is really solid, unfortunately my budget doesn't allow me to grab both an 85 and 105.. any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all!

WestEndFoto

I think the 105 and 135 DCs will be much better portrait lens with better auto-focus.

How much macro do you really need? Though I have not used them with my 135, the Kenko extension tube set may give you the macro you need and you even maintain the ability to auto-focus.

I use the Kenko extension tubes with my 200mm f/4 macro. Wow! I need better lighting before I can take usable shots with that narrow of a depth of field. But thinking about tcole1983's comment about what can be improved on the 105 f/2.8 macro, Nikon can put the 200's manual focus ring on it. Most serious macro shooting is done with manual focus and the 200's manual focus is sweet! The ring is half the lens!

Nikon could also get rid of the VR and make the maximum aperture f/4, but that is another discussion. It is why I bought my 200 before Nikon updated that.

PB_PM

I just made the jump from Canon to Nikon. With Canon I would use an 85 1.8 at weddings to grab good candids, I've been eyeing the 105 because of it's macro for details/ring shots. I'm curious on how it's performance would be for also doubling as a mid-telephoto, essentially doing what my 85 1.8 did for me, tracking somewhat moving subjects in somewhat dim situations. Does it being Macro make this difficult, would I find it hunting more? Seems like the AF is really solid, unfortunately my budget doesn't allow me to grab both an 85 and 105.. any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all!

The 105mm F2.8G VR macro does have a focus limiter switch, which does help to reduce hunting. Focus speed? I suspect the 85mm F1.8G is faster.

WestEndFoto

My perspective on a macro lens is a little different. I would give up the ability to focus past 10 feet to get more magnification.

One thing I have to acknowledge Nikon has done with the 105 is provide a decent medium telephoto with solid real macro in a focal length long enough to be useful for something either than stamps (for which a scanner is superior). By real macro I mean a 1:1 reproduction ratio. By doing this, they have made macro access to a lot of photographers.

tcole1983

@CoreyGross focus speed isn't that bad. It can track things as long as it isn't like bird in flight stuff. I actually think it is perfect for weddings. It is perfect for portraits and it is nice for the ring shots and macro stuff...flowers or whatever. I used it at the wedding I shot and I loved it....using it co-currently with my 17-55 F2.8. Of course it is a stop slower than the 85 F1.8 which could be somewhat crucial in really low light like a dark reception area. I struggled in that situation. It also depends on which body you are using and it's low light focusing capability.

If you are shooting DX and doing weddings. It was good. Too long for lots of cases, but really versatile for rings, jewelry, flowers, portraits of a couple of people, aisle shots. I had a good time and some of the best shots of it with the bride getting ready and her jewelry.

CoreyGross

@tcole983 - coming from canon world I have no issue with going 2.8 and bumping up iso to compensate.. have a d750 and noise control is much better. I really appreciate this input! Happy shooting and have a great wedding season

tcole1983

@coreygross oh I won't over play my experience as a wedding photographer. I shot one last year and it will be my last. I shot two bodies and used the 105 f2.8 and 17-55 f2.8. It worked well for me. As a second lens and body combo I was very happy with the results from the 105...of course the 85 f1.8 is cheaper and could possibly get you good enough close ups that it could be cropped slightly to get macroish results. If you are going strictly wedding and portrait use I couldn't say which one is a better option. I think the 105 at least gives you more than one role instead of just being a portrait prime basically.