Alan Browne
June 17th 06, 07:28 PM
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> After using the new Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR for almost two weeks and
> pitting it against the tried and true classic Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D I
> came to the following conclusions. For me, I like both equally well and
> would never part with either one.
>
> From an optical standpoint I'm not 100% convinced yet that the newer VR is
> any better.
It's unlikely to be better as the addition of the VR adds more glass to
the lens and hence increases the optical deficiencies. OTOH, for hand
held shooting it will obviously be better than the non VR lens at all
but the fastest shutter speeds.
OTOOH, IIRC the VR lens has a different glass formulation (not sure if
it's all elements) that possibly compensates a bit for the losses in the VR.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
> After using the new Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR for almost two weeks and
> pitting it against the tried and true classic Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D I
> came to the following conclusions. For me, I like both equally well and
> would never part with either one.
>
> From an optical standpoint I'm not 100% convinced yet that the newer VR is
> any better.
It's unlikely to be better as the addition of the VR adds more glass to
the lens and hence increases the optical deficiencies. OTOH, for hand
held shooting it will obviously be better than the non VR lens at all
but the fastest shutter speeds.
OTOOH, IIRC the VR lens has a different glass formulation (not sure if
it's all elements) that possibly compensates a bit for the losses in the VR.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.