Having had this lens for sometime now and used mainly on a tripod( no VR)I find that hand held with VR on anything below 10ft the VR is as good as useless.I can hear the VR working but it's not a patch on my other lenses.I know Nikon state that VR degrades as you get closer, but 10ft.The lens is not a year old yet so your input would be very welcome as to whether or not I send this lens back to Nikon for a check up.
Thanks for your replies, yes I am aware that VR has it's limitations, but like I said my other lenses which are VRII perform better at the same distance. Even the very slightest movement doesn't seem to be corrected. In stark contrast my 70-200 f4 is bang on and yes I know that this lens has VRIII.
I've never noticed problems with VR on my copy of the lens. VR seems to help to the extent of 2-3 stops at 10 feet and longer. As you get closer, it helps a little less but I see a benefit inside of the stated 3 feet.
VR is one of the camera functions that is most likely to fail. If you are having a problem, your VR may not be operating properly.
>I've never noticed problems with VR on my copy of the lens. >VR seems to help to the extent of 2-3 stops at 10 feet and >longer. As you get closer, it helps a little less but I see a >benefit inside of the stated 3 feet. > >VR is one of the camera functions that is most likely to fail. > If you are having a problem, your VR may not be operating >properly. > >Eric Bowles >Nikonians Team >My Gallery >Workshops > >Nikonians membership — my most important photographic >investment, after the camera
Hi Eric, thanks for your reply,perhaps this is the how the 105 works, there's no problem with my D4 as all my other lenses work as they should. Like I said, most of the time this lens is used for macro work and therefore no VR is applied. It just so happened that I had the occasion to do a shoot with this lens at about 10ft with VR on and a shutter speed of one sixtieth of a sec, the results weren't as good as I had hoped. I changed to my 24-120 and the results were bang on. So I have decided to send the 105 back to Nikon(under warranty) for a check up. Image Quality is very good when you focus at infinity or anything down to 10ft but closer than that it's second rate.
I'm not sure of your aperture setting, but the 105mm lens from a distance of 10 feet has a very shallow DOF. At f/4 it's just 6 inches - 3 in front and 3 behind the subject. The 24-120 would have the same DOF, but if you were at 75mm or moved back to 14 feet at 105mm the DOF doubles.
I think sending it for a warranty check is a good idea. You should be getting great results at 8-10 feet.
>I'm not sure of your aperture setting, but the 105mm lens >from a distance of 10 feet has a very shallow DOF. At f/4 >it's just 6 inches - 3 in front and 3 behind the subject. The >24-120 would have the same DOF, but if you were at 75mm or >moved back to 14 feet at 105mm the DOF doubles.
I just got this lens so this is an interesting read.
Is their a formula for understanding how much DOF you have with this lens?
>>Is there a formula for understanding how much DOF you >have >>with this lens? > >Our Resources Section contains a calculator (and look-up >tables) to help you work out the DoF for any lens and subject. > Check it out >here.
Wed 12-Jun-13 07:30 PM | edited Thu 13-Jun-13 10:23 AM by jamesvoortman
One of the problems is that due to the very close distance and the high magnification ratio, very small movements can cover a lot of pixels. Another problems is VR does not help subject movement at all and again, due to relatively high magnification ratio, a small subject motion such as a flower moving slightly in the breeze can project onto the sensor as a large fast movement covering hundreds of pixels.
So, while I am quite sure that the stabilisation of camera shake is still working, its effects may be diminished at close focus distances. It still helps though.
Great demonstration. It would be interesting to see what the same subject and distance look like, though - on a tripod and not wide open. I'm not intending to be critical at all (indeed as I said, this is a great demonstration) but while the VR shot is obviously far, far better than the non-VR one, I'm pretty confident that f/8 on a tripod would be massively better. Particularly since it wouldn't be shot at a relatively high ISO.
You rigged the test, did you? I'd say that the tripod shot would really, uhm, anchor this topic. ;-O
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
As for a tripod, well, I got lazy in lots of ways, and that's one of them. Not only could I have shot at f/8, but using a tripod would have allowed me to crank down the ISO, use live view for critical focus, and use MUP (or Exposure Delay) to address mirror slap.
VR is only a partial replacement for a tripod, but perhaps more importantly, it's not any sort of replacement for lighting. My own guess is that a lot of disappointment with VR comes out of similar situations -- perceived sharpness is a combination of resolving power and contrast. When you start out with dull, flat lighting like I did you're just as doomed as the Pamir herself was on her final voyage.
The attached shot is a different crop, but it's what I got a few months ago by using a tripod, monolight, umbrella, backdrop and a 70-200mm VR-II wide open.
"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Wed 19-Jun-13 11:51 AM | edited Wed 19-Jun-13 11:55 AM by no1yak
Had the opportunity to try another 105 lens. VR on this 105 is much better than my version. It locks a lot closer than mine and is stable, so I've sent my lens back to Nikon under warrantee. Will let you know what the out come is.