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

Adey: The colour closely matches the illustrations in several guides that I own, including Brooks and Lewington, and is as I remember it. I set the camera to neutral as I prefer a natural rendition.

I do agree that direct sunlight will create more saturated colours, as would flash. I know that some people prefer that look.

Anyway, I'm glad that you have confirmed the id.

Leif

Don: Thanks for the feedback. Now that I think about it, I got soft pictures only when using the Uniloc with legs extended. Evidently as the inner legs are thinner they are prone to flex, and I suppose the extra length does not help either. As I recall you have a Benbo 1 which I would expect to be more solid than my Uniloc 1600, and more like the Uniloc 1600 Major. I think I will stick with my old Uniloc for the time being. The fancy carbon fibre tripods look the business - light and sturdy - so I guess one of those might be next year's new toy. :D

Leif

Leif,

Following your post I thought I should look at my Benbo today. When I stripped it down I found that a lot of paint had flaked off but had not fallen out. I think these flakes acted as a slippery surface. Picture attched. I cleaned the paint off and added a penny washer on each side of the bolt. Some improvement when the legs are splayed out, but still not good enough. The design requires the spike section to be the main contact area with the ground. Beyond a certain point the legs will want to carry on splaying out, and there is nothing in the design of the leg top sections to prevent it.

I have had this tripod for years and never thought of the simple solution before today. For other readers of the thread I have attached a picture of a foot. The hole is moulded into the hard rubber end and is obviously, ( I can say that now :D ) for a spike.This really only applies to use on damp/soft surfaces, not much use into chalk or flint. For harder surfaces swinging spiky plates would probably be the way to go, or possibly even a length of thin rope tying all thee legs together.

I have attached a pic showing the Benbo in use, effectively nailed to the deck with garden plant supports. This really does work. You can even slacken the main bolt to move the arm up or down as the legs are not going anywhere. The file size for this pic is still quite large despite being massively compressed to get it here.

Don

I'm intrigued by, but havent tried, this type of photography.

What I can't get my head round is - how do you get your bug/damsel fly etc to stay around while you set a tripod like that up :confused:

Gidders: With great difficulty is the truthful answer. Last weekend I got up at 6am and drove to the New Forest. In the early morning the insects are docile, and can be photographed while they perch, although it can be hard to find them. Gradually as the sun warms the air, the insects become more active, and tend to skidaddle given half a chance. At that stage stalking skills and a long lens are needed. That means using slow careful motions to position a camera and tripod close to the insect. Some of the Hawkers are the worst in my experience, though Migrant Hawkers are fairly easy to snap as they enjoy hanging from tree leaves. I've also seen Golden Ringed Dragonflies perching in bracken on heaths. Recently I heard a rustle, looked up, and saw two mating Hawkers, probably Hairy Hawkers, hanging from a branch near me. Sadly my setting up of a tripod disturbed them and they scarpered.

Of course another problem is the wind, as the insects tend to cling to flimsy bits of vegetation. Then it is a case of waiting until a break in the wind, and then with luck, you have your photo. Or alternatively you can use a handheld camera with one or more flash units to freeze motion. I don't like full flash as to my eyes it can look unnatural, but some people on WPF use fill flash. I think Avi Meir does to very good effect.

An alternative is to trap an insect, take it home, and place it in the fridge to make it docile. You can then take studio photographs. I don't do this, as I don't really approve of it, though it's probably okay for common species.

Leif

Don: Funny you should mention that as a few months ago I stripped down my Uniloc, removed flaking paint, and replaced the grease with a coating of WD40. It is now much smoother to use, and the locking handle flexes more easily. Sadly my Uniloc does not have holes in the feet. Leif