Nikon 105 Z vs G?
p.1 #1Nikon 105 Z vs G?
I've been using the Nikon G 105 micro for a long time, and have generally been pretty happy with it, especially at the small apertures I use it for in product/macro photography.
The Z version was well reviewed when it came out, but I didn't see the need to switch because the G works well with the FTZ bodies. Lately I've been using the G micro a lot more though, and it sometimes will hunt a couple times or so before nailing focus on a lower contrast surface.
For those that have used both the Z and G version, is it worth switching up?
The Z version was well reviewed when it came out, but I didn't see the need to switch because the G works well with the FTZ bodies. Lately I've been using the G micro a lot more though, and it sometimes will hunt a couple times or so before nailing focus on a lower contrast surface.
For those that have used both the Z and G version, is it worth switching up?
Sep 09, 2026 at 05:10 PM
p.1 #2Nikon 105 Z vs G?
I cannot help with your specific upgrade question, as I have not used the G lens. In addition to the 105 Z, I do have most of the Nikon MF micro's and the AF-D 60mm and 200mm micros as well. The 105 Z is hands down the best of the bunch for me. The things that stand out are the image quality, and the combo of decent AF and excellent VR. Lens resolution is top shelf, even among the Z lenses and that is saying something. The AF/VR combo has allowed me to attempt macro things handheld, that I never would try in the past. I can't say how much of an improvement it is over the G lens, but this is one lens I am keeping long term.
It would be a relatively inexpensive rental to try out the Z side by side with your lens, just a suggestion.
It would be a relatively inexpensive rental to try out the Z side by side with your lens, just a suggestion.
Sep 09, 2026 at 06:14 PM
p.1 #3Nikon 105 Z vs G?
sungphoto wrote:
...sometimes will hunt a couple times or so before nailing focus on a lower contrast surface.
This shouldn't depend on the lens but on the camera and the way its AF works.
Let me add that, instead of specialized cross-type sensors (which look for detail in both horizontal and vertical directions like on DSLRs), the phase-detection pixels on a mirrorless image sensor are primarily line-sensitive (typically horizontal).
sungphoto wrote:
For those that have used both the Z and G version, is it worth switching up?
I had the 105 G, then bought the Z 105 MC. I compared them side by side and my findings are:
- the Z is sharper
- the Z has negligible fringing (LoCA) at the wider apertures, while the G suffers from it (but it can be reduced to some extent by using NX Studio);
- I prefer the out-of-focus rendition of the G lens.
I kept the Z and sold the G because the latter was slightly off-center.
I still own the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar and have compared it to the Z 105 MC: the Z is sharper but the Zeiss has smoother transitions from the plane of focus to the out-of-focus planes. Therefore, the Zeiss has definitely more 3D rendering and has a more neutral color rendition. It suffers from LoCA though. So, in the end, I kept the Z 105 MC (sharp, with AF, VR & lighter than 100/2 + FTZ II) and the 100/2 Makro-Planar (great built quality, nice rendition overall).
...sometimes will hunt a couple times or so before nailing focus on a lower contrast surface.
This shouldn't depend on the lens but on the camera and the way its AF works.
Let me add that, instead of specialized cross-type sensors (which look for detail in both horizontal and vertical directions like on DSLRs), the phase-detection pixels on a mirrorless image sensor are primarily line-sensitive (typically horizontal).
sungphoto wrote:
For those that have used both the Z and G version, is it worth switching up?
I had the 105 G, then bought the Z 105 MC. I compared them side by side and my findings are:
- the Z is sharper
- the Z has negligible fringing (LoCA) at the wider apertures, while the G suffers from it (but it can be reduced to some extent by using NX Studio);
- I prefer the out-of-focus rendition of the G lens.
I kept the Z and sold the G because the latter was slightly off-center.
I still own the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar and have compared it to the Z 105 MC: the Z is sharper but the Zeiss has smoother transitions from the plane of focus to the out-of-focus planes. Therefore, the Zeiss has definitely more 3D rendering and has a more neutral color rendition. It suffers from LoCA though. So, in the end, I kept the Z 105 MC (sharp, with AF, VR & lighter than 100/2 + FTZ II) and the 100/2 Makro-Planar (great built quality, nice rendition overall).
Sep 10, 2026 at 06:51 AM
p.1 #4Nikon 105 Z vs G?
Thanks for the replies, this is helpful. The CA at wider apertures on the G version hasn't been an issue because I generally shoot it stopped down to at least f10-14 depending on what I'm shooting. It would be nice to have the option to be able to use the macro lens at wider apertures for more creative shots.
The main reason I am looking to switch is the weight and balance of the Z vs the G. The G plus FTZ is approximately 855 grams (720 for the lens and 135 for the FTZ1), and handholding the G version is a little awkward with the FTZ bump and is front heavy. The G version is built like a tank though.
I am pretty sure I'm going to pick up the Z now that I've had a few days to percolate on it.
The main reason I am looking to switch is the weight and balance of the Z vs the G. The G plus FTZ is approximately 855 grams (720 for the lens and 135 for the FTZ1), and handholding the G version is a little awkward with the FTZ bump and is front heavy. The G version is built like a tank though.
I am pretty sure I'm going to pick up the Z now that I've had a few days to percolate on it.
Sep 10, 2026 at 01:03 PM
p.1 #5Nikon 105 Z vs G?
I used them on different bodies, and not at the same time, so take this with a grain of salt:
The Z version has a flatter focus field which helps if you're photographing flat objects, like in the document or film digitization use case. Wide open, both lenses will deliver corners that are slightly worse than the center, but the Z version will achieve uniformity much sooner, around f/4 while the G will need f/8 where the overall resolution will be lower due to diffraction.
The Z version has a flatter focus field which helps if you're photographing flat objects, like in the document or film digitization use case. Wide open, both lenses will deliver corners that are slightly worse than the center, but the Z version will achieve uniformity much sooner, around f/4 while the G will need f/8 where the overall resolution will be lower due to diffraction.
Sep 10, 2026 at 05:38 PM
p.1 #6Nikon 105 Z vs G?
old-gregg wrote:
I used them on different bodies, and not at the same time, so take this with a grain of salt:
The Z version has a flatter focus field which helps if you're photographing flat objects, like in the document or film digitization use case. Wide open, both lenses will deliver corners that are slightly worse than the center, but the Z version will achieve uniformity much sooner, around f/4 while the G will need f/8 where the overall resolution will be lower due to diffraction.
That's good to know. I used my G on a D850 for 35mm film digitization, and found it to work pretty well in my rig, but good to know that the Z would be even better.
I used them on different bodies, and not at the same time, so take this with a grain of salt:
The Z version has a flatter focus field which helps if you're photographing flat objects, like in the document or film digitization use case. Wide open, both lenses will deliver corners that are slightly worse than the center, but the Z version will achieve uniformity much sooner, around f/4 while the G will need f/8 where the overall resolution will be lower due to diffraction.
That's good to know. I used my G on a D850 for 35mm film digitization, and found it to work pretty well in my rig, but good to know that the Z would be even better.
Sep 10, 2026 at 10:18 PM
p.1 #7Nikon 105 Z vs G?
sungphoto wrote:
The main reason I am looking to switch is the weight and balance of the Z vs the G. The G plus FTZ is approximately 855 grams (720 for the lens and 135 for the FTZ1), and handholding the G version is a little awkward with the FTZ bump and is front heavy. The G version is built like a tank though.
Yes, however - for close-ups - I used the 105 G mostly on tripod and I attached the tripod head to the FTZ 1 (w/Kirk PZ-130 plate, https://kirkphoto.com/products/universal-camera-plate-pz-130u) and not to the camera. This way the balance was quite good.
NIKON Z6 w/AF-S ED 105/2.8G VR @ f/9, 1/4 s, 100 ISO, 20 focus-stacked images combined with ZS
NIKON Z6 w/AF-S ED 105/2.8G VR @ f/16, 1/5 s, 100 ISO
NIKON Z6 w/AF-S ED 105/2.8G VR @ f/5.6, 1/250 s, 100 ISO
The main reason I am looking to switch is the weight and balance of the Z vs the G. The G plus FTZ is approximately 855 grams (720 for the lens and 135 for the FTZ1), and handholding the G version is a little awkward with the FTZ bump and is front heavy. The G version is built like a tank though.
Yes, however - for close-ups - I used the 105 G mostly on tripod and I attached the tripod head to the FTZ 1 (w/Kirk PZ-130 plate, https://kirkphoto.com/products/universal-camera-plate-pz-130u) and not to the camera. This way the balance was quite good.
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
Sep 11, 2026 at 03:10 AM
|
p.1 #8Nikon 105 Z vs G?
If you are looking for a native mount Macro lens with good AF performance and optical acuity that is similar to the Nikkors, take a look at Tamron's Z-Mount 90mm macro. I do not do enough macro photography to justify the added expense of the Nikon lens, so I bought the Tamron for when I'm working around tide pools or want to shoot patterns. As a guy who owns and shoots the 400 f2.8TC and 70-200S, high quality optics are important to me, and I think the Tamron is definitely worth a look if you want to eliminate the need for the FTZ.
cheers,
bruce
cheers,
bruce
Sep 11, 2026 at 08:54 AM
p.1 #9Nikon 105 Z vs G?
The working distance @ life-size of the 105 MC is 5.28" (134 mm from front of lens).
The working distance @ life-size of the Tamron is 4 inches (9 cm).
The WD of the 105 G (1:1) is top: 15.4 centimeters / 6.1 inches (2 cm more than the Z 105 MC; this is another plus of the 105 G).
So it depends on how much you value WD. For me, it is of utmost importance for shooting shy subjects in the field, and for better isolating the subject from the background.
The working distance @ life-size of the Tamron is 4 inches (9 cm).
The WD of the 105 G (1:1) is top: 15.4 centimeters / 6.1 inches (2 cm more than the Z 105 MC; this is another plus of the 105 G).
So it depends on how much you value WD. For me, it is of utmost importance for shooting shy subjects in the field, and for better isolating the subject from the background.
Sep 11, 2026 at 10:04 AM
p.1 #10Nikon 105 Z vs G?
OwlsEyes wrote:
If you are looking for a native mount Macro lens with good AF performance and optical acuity that is similar to the Nikkors, take a look at Tamron's Z-Mount 90mm macro. I do not do enough macro photography to justify the added expense of the Nikon lens, so I bought the Tamron for when I'm working around tide pools or want to shoot patterns. As a guy who owns and shoots the 400 f2.8TC and 70-200S, high quality optics are important to me, and I think the Tamron is definitely worth a look if you want to eliminate the need...Show more →
Thanks, it looks to be a nice option. I wonder how well the Tamron macro performs from a flaring standpoint. One thing that impresses me with the Nikons is their resistance to flaring, and I've found that my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 flares pretty easily even without direct light sources in frame, in a studio environment with a high key background.
If you are looking for a native mount Macro lens with good AF performance and optical acuity that is similar to the Nikkors, take a look at Tamron's Z-Mount 90mm macro. I do not do enough macro photography to justify the added expense of the Nikon lens, so I bought the Tamron for when I'm working around tide pools or want to shoot patterns. As a guy who owns and shoots the 400 f2.8TC and 70-200S, high quality optics are important to me, and I think the Tamron is definitely worth a look if you want to eliminate the need...Show more →
Thanks, it looks to be a nice option. I wonder how well the Tamron macro performs from a flaring standpoint. One thing that impresses me with the Nikons is their resistance to flaring, and I've found that my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 flares pretty easily even without direct light sources in frame, in a studio environment with a high key background.
Sep 11, 2026 at 12:34 PM
p.1 #11Nikon 105 Z vs G?
I think there is a huge difference in design between a fast wide to tele zoom lens, and flare probably has as much to do with the shear number of elements in your zoom and the complexity of the design. Tamron has been the "alternative" macro lens since the early 1970's and there macro lenses have always been well regarded.
I'm attaching a few photos I made with this lens in June... Ripolini is correct about the MFD, but if you are not creeping very close to distance sensitive subjects, it is pretty amazing. I use a 100-400S when photographing butterflies and snakes, while my 90mm macro relegated to nature still life's and tide pool work.
cheers,
bruce
I'm attaching a few photos I made with this lens in June... Ripolini is correct about the MFD, but if you are not creeping very close to distance sensitive subjects, it is pretty amazing. I use a 100-400S when photographing butterflies and snakes, while my 90mm macro relegated to nature still life's and tide pool work.
cheers,
bruce
NIKON Z 8 TAMRON 90mm F2.8 F072 Z lens 90mm f/20.0 1s 400 ISO -0.7 EV
NIKON Z 8 TAMRON 90mm F2.8 F072 Z lens 90mm f/18.0 1/4s 400 ISO -0.7 EV
NIKON Z 8 TAMRON 90mm F2.8 F072 Z lens 90mm f/18.0 1/3s 100 ISO -0.3 EV
Sep 11, 2026 at 01:39 PM
p.1 #12Nikon 105 Z vs G?
True, though the Nikon 24-120 f4 S in the same strong backlit scenario does not lose contrast in the same way. I think it has to do with differing coatings and that 35-150 is known for its propensity to flare. I think with the used price of the Nikon S 105 around $650-700, I’ll probably just go 1st party. Thanks for the image samples, they look nice and sharp. The working distance is a bit of a factor, so glad to know those specs, because recently I’ve been shooting server components and if I get too close with the camera, it starts to block out light.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I think there is a huge difference in design between a fast wide to tele zoom lens, and flare probably has as much to do with the shear number of elements in your zoom and the complexity of the design. Tamron has been the "alternative" macro lens since the early 1970's and there macro lenses have always been well regarded.
I'm attaching a few photos I made with this lens in June... Ripolini is correct about the MFD, but if you are not creeping very close to distance sensitive subjects, it is pretty amazing. I use a 100-400S when photographing...Show more →
OwlsEyes wrote:
I think there is a huge difference in design between a fast wide to tele zoom lens, and flare probably has as much to do with the shear number of elements in your zoom and the complexity of the design. Tamron has been the "alternative" macro lens since the early 1970's and there macro lenses have always been well regarded.
I'm attaching a few photos I made with this lens in June... Ripolini is correct about the MFD, but if you are not creeping very close to distance sensitive subjects, it is pretty amazing. I use a 100-400S when photographing...Show more →
Sep 11, 2026 at 04:04 PM
p.1 #13Nikon 105 Z vs G?
Just received a beautiful copy of the Z 105 Micro from a fellow FMer, and I am very happy.
I had just done some handheld macro shots with the 105G as a favor for a friend, taking some shots using a pretty basic light box at a museum. The 887 gram weight of the 105G plus FTZ v1 is much less comfortable to handhold than the 626 gram 105 Z (just checked with my kitchen counter scale).
The Z version also hunts less, focuses faster and is less noisy in operation, though the G wasn't exactly loud.
I had just done some handheld macro shots with the 105G as a favor for a friend, taking some shots using a pretty basic light box at a museum. The 887 gram weight of the 105G plus FTZ v1 is much less comfortable to handhold than the 626 gram 105 Z (just checked with my kitchen counter scale).
The Z version also hunts less, focuses faster and is less noisy in operation, though the G wasn't exactly loud.
Sep 21, 2026 at 04:44 PM