Nikon 200mm macro f4 af

[Simon.b]

I have searched the forums here and unless its really archived? the 200mm f4 AF isn't mentioned a great deal. Is this because its a huge beast and in price and better for full frame format? sorry to quote Mr Rockwell, but his review sways to this being the holy grail so to speak! most people appear to have the nikon 105mm or other make's in their inventory.
I have been contemplating getting into macro photography and possibly the 200mm len's, but if it means scaffold poles, difficult for a mere novice such as I etc, then maybe a DX 85mm is the better choice?
Thanks and patience in advance, from someone with a little knowledge, "which can be dangerous"

[yelvertoft]

Hi Simon,

I'm not familiar with this specific lens, but do quite a bit of still life/macro stuff. I think a lot depends on what your intended subject matter is. 200mm is long, very long for macro work, and the DoF you're going to get with 200mm at close ranges will be extremely shallow, even by the usual macro close up standards.

You say you are a novice, if so, then I'm not sure that this is the lens to learn on, especially if it's big and expensive.

I couldn't really say which lens would be best for you without knowing what sort of things you'll be taking pictures of, and at what sort of distances.

Regarding Mr Rockwell, would you pay that much attention to a stranger in a bar who expressed an opinion?

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Simon.b

I have searched the forums here and unless its really archived? the 200mm f4 AF isn't mentioned a great deal.

Well that will be down to the price probably.

All the pics I have seen from this lens show it to be a stellar performer but as Duncan says 200mm is pretty long.
The first question is what camera do you have as this lens does not have a built in A/F motor. If you are AFS only then your options are more limited. Next up would be the type of subjects you are interested in taking. Skittish insects, then you are in the region of 105 to 200mm but for anything else 60 to 85mm will be fine.

I have the old manual focus versions of the 55mm and 105mm and Stevie has the 60mm AF-D so I hope I can be of help.

Rockwell ........ well. Sometimes he is right and sometimes he just goes off on one. I am sure just to get his site more hits.

Don

[nirofo]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

Hi Simon,

I'm not familiar with this specific lens, but do quite a bit of still life/macro stuff. I think a lot depends on what your intended subject matter is. 200mm is long, very long for macro work, and the DoF you're going to get with 200mm at close ranges will be extremely shallow, even by the usual macro close up standards.

You say you are a novice, if so, then I'm not sure that this is the lens to learn on, especially if it's big and expensive.

I couldn't really say which lens would be best for you without knowing what sort of things you'll be taking pictures of, and at what sort of distances.

Regarding Mr Rockwell, would you pay that much attention to a stranger in a bar who expressed an opinion?

Depth of field is relative to the distance of image to film/sensor in relation to image magnification and F stop used regardless of which lens you use. For instance if you use a 90mm at a distance to image ratio which gives you a 1/1 (lifesize) image, then there is no difference if you use a 200mm giving the same 1/1 image, except that the distance between subject and film/sensor plane will be greater.

If the 200mm Macro is too big for what you need and you want to stay with Nikon have a look for a secondhand 75-150mm Macro, it's a cracker.

nirofo.

[Simon.b]

Thankyou all for your input/advise, I currently have a nikon d90 with an 18-200mm vr (the mk 1 lens) I was hoping to take pictures of insects, not sure of skitish one's? I guess mainly the most common,bee's/ladybirds/ants? also flowers and the workings ie: pistil/stamen/anther in sharp detail, if this is possible? If I could get half as close to some of the pictures on here I would be more than happy. I tend to read to much information about things and then my head goes bang and I'm back where I started! I thought also if I chose a lens that would work on both DX and FX and not just DX then should I upgrade to FX at any given point, these could move with me?
ATB

[robski]

The main advantage of a 200mm over a 85mm is that you have a greater "working distance" (distance between subject and front of the lens). Skittish subjects tend to object and buzz off when the front element of your lens is pushed into their face. The minimum working distance for a 200mm is about 10 inches as opposed to 4 inches for a 85mm. Another problem with being too close is getting light on the subject as the lens and camera body tends to shade the subject.

The 100mm or 150mm lens are a good compromise on working distance and price. Prime macro lens by design tend to be stellar or mega stellar.

The Sigma 105mm and 150mm gets a good rating by many users.

[robski]

Duncan I thought we had this discussion many moons ago to debunk the myth that DOF is a function of lens focal length.

As stated by nirofo DOF is related to "distance of image to film/sensor in relation to image magnification and F stop used regardless of which lens you use".

[yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by robski

As stated by nirofo DOF is related to "distance of image to film/sensor in relation to image magnification and F stop used regardless of which lens you use".

Quite agree that for a given f-stop, if you keep the magnification constant, the focal length does not count. But, if you keep the distance to subject constant, the DoF gets smaller as the FL gets longer (and the magnification changes).

If you're going to keep magnification constant, the FL doesn't count. If you're going to keep distance to subject constant, the FL does count.

As I said, it all depends on what the intended subject matter is.

[Don Hoey]

Simon,

Thats a pretty wide range of subjects so from the Nikon range I would suggest either the 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor or as nirofo has suggested the 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6D AF IF-ED Micro-Nikkor for a bit more flexability. Naturally there are three lenses ( 105mm, 150mm and 180mm ) from the Sigma range some or all of which forum members could give you a view on. I am concentrating on A/F versions so as not to add to your difficulties by touching on manual focus.

Nikon lenses are more expensive than their Sigma counterparts but you can save a bob or two by buying secondhand Nikon from a reputable dealer like Grays of Westminster who will give a 12 month warranty.
Link to Grays listing http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/...secondhand.php

Without a doubt the most veratile is the 70-180 Micro Nikkor. This is no longer a current item so you are in the used catagory for this one. Grays currently have two £925 & £975.
If I remember correctly Andy153 has one and should be able to give his views on it.

The Nikkor 105 AF-S VR is current but yet again is available used from Grays £445 & £525. As this is current there are quite a number of reviews on the net. KR even has a side by side size comparison shot with the AF-D version.

No longer current is the 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor. Once again available used at Grays. My friend Foxy has this and I can confirm that it is a good performer.

Sigma have versions in 105mm, 150mm and 180mm and there is probably a larger number of users on this forum of Sigma Maro lenses than Nikon Micro lenses.

One thing to consider is that those lenses without a built in motor such as Nikons AF-D versions can accept almost any extension tube or bellows unit to give greater magnification. AF-S versions require a special tube containing electronic contacts to allow control of the aperture. This may be an important consideration if in the future you intend taking shots of very small bugs.

I have not put a pic up for a bit, so here is a hoverfly from earlier in the year, taken with 105mm lens at f11 so you can see how shallow the depth of field can get even on a subject of this size.

Don

[Simon.b]

Thankyou all once again, I have heard of grays so will check their website, loved the hoverfly picture don, was it taken with the recent 105mm vr? and would you know if to get right in/sharp on a flower and its workings if it would require a tele converter? I have tried with my current lens/manual&auto focus/results before&after cropping are still nothing like that fly!
ATB