~200mm macro lens

[Leif]

Does anyone have experience with ~200mm macro lenses or alternatives? I am thinking about the Tamron 180mm F3.5, which seems decent. However, some people are using the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 AFS VR lens with extension tubes or a diopter lens for close ups. Are the results any good? (It is impossible to tell from the small images posted.) My initial reaction is that it must be mediocre. I know the old 80-200mm F2.8 is at its worst at 200mm and close focus. I have used a 3T diopter on a 75-150mm F3.5 zoom but it is nothing like as sharp/contrasty as my 60mm F2.8 micro.

I suppose an alternative is the 300mm AFS F4 + extension tubes (I have old Triplus AF tubes).

BTW I want to go to ~1:2.

As an aside, the ePhotozine review of the Nikon 200mm F4 AF micro lens has a full size photo taken at F8 of a harbour which is awful. Surely this lens is suspect.

Thanks.

Leif

[prostie1200]

Hi Leif
I Have the Nikon 105 2.8 AF Macro, and also use the 35mm and 50mm primes for close up work and even on occasion reverse the 50mm on to the 105 for 2:1 plus.

As for the 300 AFS 2.8, I have never used it with extension tube, but here is a grab shot I took last week with the 300 + a 1.7TCE, the image is full fame.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by prostie1200

Hi Leif
I Have the Nikon 105 2.8 AF Macro, and also use the 35mm and 50mm primes for close up work and even on occasion reverse the 50mm on to the 105 for 2:1 plus.

As for the 300 AFS 2.8, I have never used it with extension tube, but here is a grab shot I took last week with the 300 + a 1.7TCE, the image is full fame.

Hello prostie1200

Thanks for the photo. It looks like your little friend has bitten off more than (s)he can chew.

I decided to given the Nikon 200mm macro a try. It is expensive, but with luck it will be the bees knees, and it will be a bit more compact and convenient than a 300mm lens + tubes.

Leif

[Don Hoey]

Leif,

You dont mention the subject matter so I am unsure how much of your decision for a long lens is based on working distance. I can understand that with a 200 you can really have super diffused backgounds but without having a dof calculator to hand I am sure you will be more limited than with a 105 in that respect.

BTW I have looked at the photozone pics and a bit surprised that you can only view the non macro images, and not too sure of the lens to subject distance in the Maritime Museum shot where I guess they are trying to show the limited dof at f4.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Leif

However, when I compared images of a Bee Orchid using a 60mm macro at F11, and a 75-150 zoom + 3T diopter at 150mm and F11, I am sure the latter had reduced DOF. I suppose it might have been field curvature creating that illusion. Or alternatively the 60mm lens might just have been sharper, creatig the illusion of more DOF. More detailed tests might be worthwhile.

Leif

Leif,

I copied the quote here to keep this on topic.

I think the sharpness falloff is greater with the longer lens, hence my question in the last post. Perhaps Prostie could take a pic to show the degree of falloff with the 105.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Leif

I decided to given the Nikon 200mm macro a try. It is expensive, but with luck it will be the bees knees, and it will be a bit more compact and convenient than a 300mm lens + tubes.

Leif

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.

[Leif]

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

[Don Hoey]

Hi Leif,

For your subject matter the 200mm should fit the bill perfectly. I would not expect there to be a difference in dof but you should benefit as far as backgrounds go by a faster fall of in sharpness of out of focus areas when compared with the 60mm. The telephoto effect relative to the 60mm should give far better isolation of the subject from distracting backgrounds. You referred to this in a previous post re the 60mm and 75-150 + 3T.

Re your 75-150 zoom, I certainly don't sneer. Although the ' E ' range was introduced to go with the EM and FG the performance was known to have surprised a lot of reviewers. Same is probably true today with some lower priced optics producing results that well exceed that expected for the price point.

I would seriously suggest a home test where you are in a relaxed, total control of all things environment and able to get pics onto your pc fairly quickly. That will allow familiarity with the lens, best performance v aperture etc. I see Bjorn Rorslett quotes optimum between f4-f11.

My confidence level is such that I expect you to be looking at a 6T Close-up next. More expense ........ just checked Nikons UK pricelist Code FPF00701 No. 6T Close-up attachment lens £71:99.

Don