In article
>I would generally aggree with the above comments regarding
>the 105/2.8 vs. the 105/2.5, with the caveat that having
>sold my 105/2.5 to finance the purchase of the Micro-Nikkor,
>I now find focussing at longer distances somewhat more
>difficult. I would certainly agree that the infinity
>performance of the 105/2.8 is not in any way second to the
>105/2.5, but have definately missed a few shots due to the
>much smaller focus-throw on the Micro-Nikkor. One should
>also religously use the (somewhat akward snap-on) hood with
>this lens, particularly outdoors, as it has a lot of
>elements and contrast can suffer otherwise.
Good points above. Near-infinity focusing is more troublesome
in the AF version than in the MF version, and the optics are
generally not as wonderful near infinity focus in the AF lens.
>Another thing: The SLE(MN) report, and various postings
>(notably from Grover Larkins) have criticized the 105/2.8
>due to its CRC formulation when used with tubes or bellows,
>and as a result, I avoid using it in the realm of 1:2 to 1:1
>reproduction ratios, were the lens is CRC'ing for longer
>distances, though imaging in the macro realm. Does anyone
>have any comment on the trade-offs of solving this problem
>by switching to the older 105/4? I really want a 105
>portrait lens and macro lens combined, but do quite
>frequently get into larger reproduction ratios. How is the
>infinity performance of the 105/4? From the above sources,
>the 105/4 is probably a better macro lens than the 105/2.8,
>but possibly the 105/2.8 is the near equal of the 105/2.5 as
>a portait lens.
I did not like the 105mm f4 Micro-Nikkors I have tried - the
105mm f2.8's seemed better to me throughout their ranges.
As for the 105mm MF Micro's CRC, if you use the lens at 1:1
on a tube, the CRC is nearly optimally set. As you approach
1:2 using a tube, the CRC approaches the infinity setting, but
the lens is still good stopped down. (You might want to check
out my "SLE(MN)" again....). Finding a lens that is great from
2x (with tubes, converter, or achromat added) to infinity at
wide apertures is pretty difficult. The Nikkor 105mm f2.8 Micros
(both MF and AF) come close, though each has a few compromises.
(If very-close to medium distance performance and ease-of-use
is more important to you, take the AF version; if moderately-close
to infinity work is more important, take the MF version; if 6' to
infinity is all you require, save money and take the 105mm f2.5).
BTW, I would consider the 105mmm Micro's to be noticeably sharper
than the 105mm f2.5 at 4-5' at wide apertures, though you may want
the slightly reduced sharpness of the f2.5 at that distance for
portraits.
Hope This Helps