Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Don Hoey
Leif,
If you have got the dosh then from what I have read ( my pick of reviewers ) then the 200 is a lens you will not be dissapointed with. If cash was not a limiting factor then this would be my choice, again I am not sure of your subject matter.
The snag in the decision process is that the 105 is VR, and may be more flexible in a general usage sense and half the cost. Both focal lengths have been a long time in the Nikon lens range so no probs there. After a good look, I have totally discounted the photozone pics as not being representative of the quality attainable. With the D200 sensor resolution I would only consider the latest in either range though as they will have been optimally tweaked for CA.
Don.
|
Don: I looked closely at the ePhotozine image of the harbour taken with the 200mm micro at F8. It looks soft, and the right hand side is out of focus, whereas the left is okay. My guess is that the review sample is defective. Anyway, I have a 30 day return period on the lens, so I will do some tests to make sure that it is good. I must confess to some trepidation caused by that review.
Part of my thinking is that I can get a new sample of this lens for less than some shops sell used ones. So if I keep it years, all well and good, and if I sell it after a few years, I should not lose much. (I once owned a 105mm F2.8 AFD macro, bought cheap, and sold with little loss.) I have had a 60mm F2.8 AF macro for 10 years and it is a gem.
My interest is dragonflies, and other insects, and I have found through experience that it is so much easier with a 200mm lens due to increased working distance. That is partly why the 75-150mm zoom + 3T diopter does not cut the mustard. The other issue, besides the lens, is finding a good site, and my favourite is quite a drive from Luton. I am also interested in wild flowers and plants, and I will try the lens out this weekend at a local National Nature Reserve. I am lucky that there are two first rate ones a few miles north of my home.
The new 105mm lens with VR does not appeal to me. IMO for macro work framing and focus are critical, and hand holding is not viable. Now of course many people can prove me wrong by showing lovely hand held macro images, but I prefer to use a tripod. And of course the working distance is not that long.
Anyway, for general usage I have the 75-150 F3.5 zoom. You may well sneer at this ancient and cheap manual zoom, but optically it is very very good. And it is small and light.
And I have found that the 28mm F2.8 AIS is also a nice lens for close ups of plants and fungi. With CRC it works very well.
As I said elsewhere, I do not think there is any difference in DOF as I understand it to be a function of F ratio and image magnification. Feel free to highlight the error in my ways. I will take a peek at my books to see if they comment on this. I have at least 3 dedicated to macro photography (by Joseph Meeham, John Shaw, Paul Harcourt Davies).
Leif