8 out of 10 points and recommendedwide angle view, fast accurate focusingbuild quality for money, purple fringing & CA at wide angles
Provides that extra view not available to the 17-35. Cant quite provide 17-35 quality in particular the 12-24 produces some purple fringing in high contrast areas.reviewed November 21st, 2006
All in all its the only Nikon solution below 17mm thats not an old and expensive prime.
Image quality is good when stopped down to f8 or f11. Going to f22 degrades image quality.
Build quality not up with the pro lenses and its expensive
9 out of 10 points and recommendedimage quality (sharpness), build qualitydoesn't go really wide on D200, price new
Bought mine second hand on ebay and have been very pleased so far.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $900)
Already had the 12-24 and thought I could improve image quality above 17mm.
Built like a tank and produced excellent image quality and sharpness. As every the best quality is stopped down. Use mine for landscape work at f8 to f11.
Much cheaper second hand than a 17-55 and will suite when Nikon go full frame in the future.
On the con side its big and heavy.
Found it resists flare well when stopped down. A little CA wide open but much better than the 12-24 when stopped down.
Go for it ;-)
9 out of 10 points and recommendedImage quality, build qualitysize, weight and cost, prone to some CA wide open and @ f4
Known by some as "The beast" its built like a tank with a similar weight and cost.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $1,500)
Delivers excellent image quality stopped down abit, but watch out for some CA wide open.
Quick to focus with a big lens hood. Often used for portrait images.
The length extends a bit at extreme's of the zoom range.
Not used as often as my 12-24 or 17-35 but definitely a keeper.
Need to think about justifying its cost over a 24-85 that I sold to buy it. Having said that you feel you have got value for money
6 out of 10 points and recommendedgood image quality particularly at 85mm, lightplastic fantastic
Bought mine when the D100 came out and it was my only lens until i got a sigma 15-30. Build quality was suspect with play in the mechanics when zoomed to 85mm.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $300)
It also seemed to leak a little oil or lubricant on the barrel. Sent it back to Nikon but they said "this is normal" ! It was otherwise reliable
Didn't feel like it would take many knocks.
Image quality was good, particularly at 85mm and the AFS focusing accurate and quick.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedVR technology and image qualitysize and weight
An amazing bit of technology that is built to outlast most mortal beings.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $1,600)
The VR works wonders and is probably necessary for handholding at this weight.
The AFS is quick and along with the D200 allows fast moving subjects to be acquired and tracked easily.
Image quality is excellent at f4 with no real signs of fringing or CA.
Many say this is Nikon's finest lens to date and I would have to agree.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedNew VR technology, reasonable price, excellent image qualityCant really think of one
Upgraded my 60mm micro to this 105VR and am very pleased.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $1,000)
The VR effect does tail off the closer you are to the subject and the AF is sometimes touch and go acquiring focus. However use the focus limiter to help.
You can also use the cameras AFC mode to compensate for the the very narrow DOF when hand held to help maintain focus. Its a bit like 3D VR technology.
The barrel is very thick for a non 77mm lens but i suppose they have to fit the image stabilizing gyro's in there.
Please also remember that its not f2.8 when focusing at 1:1 in common with other macro lenses.
But most of the time you want to be at f11 to get a reasonable DOF
8 out of 10 points and recommendedimage qulaity, build qualityAF not to quick
Rescued my copy from a uncaring home on Ebay. After a good clean and a new lens cap it delivered excellent quality. Use it mostly for flowers at f8 through f11.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $300)
Always gave excellent image qulaity.
This is now an old design and its not up with the best for focus speed and the Manual / Auto selector is a bit clunky.
Also found that the extending barrel would occasionaly trap my fingers if not careful. The gearing and the D200's motor mean that this can hurt !
Eventually sold mine to fund a 105VR which gives a handheld macro capability for chasing dragonflies etc etc.
If you are patient enough and have a tripod then give it a go.
6 out of 10 points and recommendedfast f1.4, sharpness when stopped down to f2flares a bit
Mine is the older non-D version but I believe they are otherwise very similar.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $200)
Produces excellent sharpness at f2 and above with f1.4 being really quite soft.
The manual focus is very light but smooth.
Had a few flare problems at f1.4 and f1.8.
Not really found a use for it other than the odd portrait.
May keep it, may not.....
6 out of 10 points and recommendedbuild qualityflare at the slightest hint of the sun, very large
Bought mine to go with a D100 before the 12-24 and 10-20's were available.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $600)
To be honest I should have waited !
Image qulaity was OK, but it flared at the slightest hint of the sun.
It is very large with its integral hood and quirky cap.
Wasn't all that keen on the push pull AF/MF selector which needs too much effort for camera to the eye changes.
The bulbous front element is an optical curiosity and no doubt the cause of the flare problems.
Did feel like it was built to last.
Traded mine in for the Nikon 12-24 !
6 out of 10 points and recommendedcheap and lightplasticky build quality
The build quality is very plasticky particularly when zoomed out and using the macro facility (1:2 max).reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $200)
The manual focusing didnt inspire confidence with a hint of lens creep when pointed downwards
Image quality was acceptable after a bit of contrast enhancement in PS.
The 300mm end sufers a little with sharpness.
Upgraded to a Nikon 70-200 which is on a different planet ( cost and qulaity)
OK for a budget entry zoom but you will always be wanting something a bit better