Nikon 200mm AFD F4 micro lens: first impressions.
 

As I received this yesterday, I thought I would some first impressions of the performance on a Nikon D200 body.

For close ups, sharpness is pretty much constant between F4 and F11, with a very slight drop at F16, and a bigger drop at F22, though F22 is probably useable. Edge sharpness is excellent even wide open, though the APS sensor will help here. Rather annoyingly focussing for a wide open shot is near impossible due to the shallow DOF. (I should add that this is a result of physics, and not the lens itself.) For distance, performance is excellent, though with slight softening at F16, and noticeable softening at F22. Again edge sharpness is excellent at all apertures.

Contrast is very high, and is something I've only really seen with the best lenses. My 60mm F2.8 AF micro and 28mm AIS F2.8 produce images with a similar feel.

I've attached some images to give an idea of image quality. These were taken using a cable release and mirror lock up, with a Uniloc 1600 tripod and Markins M10 ball head. In each case the image has had light USM applied.

The first four images are crops from some test photos of a brick wall. The images are crops at 100% from the top left corner. The exposures are F4, F11, F16 and F22. I reckong hat the sharpest is the F4 image, closely followed by F11, F16 and F22, with the last one being noticeably softer than the first.

The next image is of a Bee Orchid, taken this evening at a local National Nature Reserve.

And finally, the last two images (see the next post) are crops from some test photos of a driving licence (the licence almost fills the frame). The images are crops at 100% from the top left corner. The first is F4.5 (wide open) and the second is F8 (closed down almost two stops).

This is without doubt a high performance lens, and my own experiences suggest that the sample reviewed on the ePhotozine web site was a lemon, and a particularly sour and thick skinned one at that.

Now all I have to do is get outside and use the beast. It's a hard life.

Leif

And the last two images as promised. Leif

Leif,

Very impressive. I have just had a good look at these side by side and agree with how you have rated them by aperture. Nice to know that my confidence has been born out. I am really quite surprised by the performance at f4 given that this is a macro lens.

I have just compared the 2 Bee Orchid pics and the smoothness of the background of the 200mm is tops as I expected.

Thanks for the post Leif, I look forward to seeing more.

Don

Here are some recent examples:

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...4&limit=recent
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...4&limit=recent

Leif

Both superb images Leif.

The falloff in out of focus backgrounds is superb. It really isolates the subject.

Looks like a 10/10 piece of kit. :)

Don

Thanks for the kind words. Yes I am well pleased with the new lens. Only problem is, I'm not sure the tripod is sufficient. :D

I believe that you have a Benbo 1 which is similar to my Uniloc 1600 (maybe a bit sturdier). How do you find the stability compared to your other tripods? Vibration seems to be a problem with the Uniloc's legs are extended.

Leif

Leif,

I can understand where you are comming from. It is easy for me as I do not often get myself into true Benbo territory so I use my big Slik 98% of the time. Not a snag for me, but it does weigh a fair bit.

The Slik is in a different league from the Manfrotto 055 range which I do not rate as any more stable than the Benbo and certainly not as versatile.

Low down with the legs spread apart I am not too happy with the Benbo and am thinking of how to attach a low level arm to the Slik.

An interesting question though as I do not know what alternatives are on the market. A bit of research required.

Don

Well, the lens certainly seems suitable for the job, but I'm fascinated by the exposure info on the Azure - even at F16, 1/8th sec at ISO400 appears quite long. The intensity of the blue is affected by the age of the individual and the temperature, but Azure is the bluest of the damselflies and I reckon you could have got away with one or two stops faster

Adey: 2 stops less exposure would create a very dark image. The image is pretty much unprocessed, apart from a bit of sharpening, and some cropping. I reckon the camera got it about right, though maybe 1/3 stop less would have been better. The long exposure is due to rather cloudy conditions and shading from Gorse bushes. So much for BBC weather forecasts. The histogram looks fine with no burnout.

I have to admit to not being 100% certain of the id, having used the book by Brooks and Lewington, and compared the markings. Anything not resembling a mushroom is a challenge for me. :D

Leif

My shot was taken in sunshine, which intensifies the colours more than cloudy conditions but compare, especially, the blacks. On the insects themselves the black is a really solid colour.

It's definitely worth playing around with a few exposures to get them looking as they should, whatever the histogram says. I usually have a 1/3 stop under-exposure dialled-in to avoid washed-out colours but often select 2/3 if there's no lighter areas present (mind you, the 20D isn't the best camera that Canon have made as far as spot-on exposure is concerned!)

When you get them this big in the frame ther's no problem id-ing them - get a Common Blue side by side with the Azure and you see how many differences there really are. It's not just the 'U' shape on segment 2 - there's the extra 'half-stripe' on the side of the thorax on Azure plus the shape of the black areas down the abdomen and the bit of black on segment 9 which is all blue in Common. There's 'Sticky' thread over on BF insect dept. showing the differences