Any Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 experience?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/26/2005 08:32:52 AM · #1

I'm teetering on the verge of purchasing a Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4. I think if B&H were open this week I'd already have ordered it, but I'm using their closure to seek opinions... It's a bit too early to assume everyone has updated their glass records in the profiles, so I'm asking here.

Anyone out there using a Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 who could help sway me in either direction? I'm primarily shooting flowers and butterflies, so the working distance is a definite factor. 60mm is inadequate, and from what I gather, the 105 f/2.8 is borderline for nature when it comes to working distance on critters.

The only other lens I considered was the Sigma 150mm. It's a bit faster, but not as much working distance. I also get a bit queasy with extension tube / teleconverter compatibility, so have an admitted bias towards sticking with Nikkors.

I'd appreciate any rational thoughts to counter my Nikon Acquisition Syndrome, but anyone else who has NAS is welcome to apply peer pressure :)

Thanks!

Nuno

Nikon D700

04/26/2005 12:48:46 PM · #2

I bump this one because I'm waiting to see the response. For what I've seen there isn't many people using nikon macro lens, so I'm curious.

i also plan buying a macro lens. the 105mm seemed nice for me, but you're probably right, the distance is a big issue if you don't want to scare your object. but in other way light and portability becoumes a bigger problem, making a trip to the field less confrtable and shooting hand held only for sunny days. I know that I'm exagerating, but I would love to hear other's oppinions.

Just a note: the sigma 150mm seems a beauty, doesn't it?

Message edited by author 2005-04-26 12:49:43.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/26/2005 01:21:06 PM · #3

The reviews from BjÃ¸rn RÃ¸rslett are of very high value to me. Browse down this page to find his opinion about the 200mm f4 macro's from Nikon:

//www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/26/2005 01:29:07 PM · #4

BTW, I guess you have to stop the lens down considerably. The DOF from a 200mm shooting close distance subjects is very narrow.

Here; this is a 200mm lens @ f2.8 from 1.5m. The DOF is a few mm. Stopping down to f16 would give about 2cm...

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/26/2005 01:35:24 PM · #5

Originally posted by Azrifel:

The description attached to the thumb you posted looks like the 70-200, not the 200 f/4... But either way, I'm used to working with a 300mm lens shooting birds, so I'm pretty comfortable with the DOF range.

There's no real way around the issue; I need working distance, and with the comes a short depth of field. Pretty much any macro photography comes down to the challenge of getting your subject's critical plane parallel with the sensor plane to maximize those few mm / cm.

rebelo

Nikon D70

04/26/2005 01:37:06 PM · #6

Originally posted by Nuno:

i also plan buying a macro lens. the 105mm seemed nice for me, but you're probably right, the distance is a big issue if you don't want to scare your object. but in other way light and portability becoumes a bigger problem, making a trip to the field less confrtable and shooting hand held only for sunny days. I know that I'm exagerating, but I would love to hear other's oppinions.

Just a note: the sigma 150mm seems a beauty, doesn't it?

I personally use the Sigma 105mm Macro lens. It's a terrific lens, but any macro lens will be. Even if I had the money for the Nikkor 200mm f/4, I would not use that one for myself because it is far too cumbersome and heavy to handle in some of the tight situations I need to maneuver when trying to catch critters. The 150 sigma would be nice, but the working distance between that and the 105 really isn't so drastic that I see the extra money as being worthwhile.

As for handholding, forget it. Even in really good sunlight, when you are shooting 1:1 reproduction (even higher magnification on a DSLR), the most microscopic camera shake is magnified exponentially in the image. You're going to have to tripod for doing extreme closeups because you won't be using 1/4000th shutter speeds. Due to the shallow DOF you will be stopping down to f/16, f/22, etc and then the shutter speeds will be much slower.

04/26/2005 01:38:04 PM · #7

I guess I'll be my own responder in about 10 days :) I just returned from placing the special order for the Nikkor. Should have some good stuff to post in a few weeks - hope I don't miss too much of the spring blooming over that time!

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/26/2005 01:44:01 PM · #8

Originally posted by rebelo:

As for handholding, forget it.

I almost never shoot without a tripod, so this isn't an issue. Even on bright days I use remote shutter release with a tripod for everything, and since the Nikkor is 100mm shorter than what I normally work with, I think I'll be fine.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/26/2005 01:44:30 PM · #9

Originally posted by cghubbell:

It is the 70-200, I just used the wrong words to say 'shot at 200mm'. :)
Keep us updated about your purchase, would love to see the results.

Nuno

Nikon D700

04/26/2005 07:24:55 PM · #10

Originally posted by cghubbell:

Hope to see some post here in a few days.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/26/2005 07:37:10 PM · #11

I own the following Nikon Micro lens:

- 60mm f2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
- 105mm f2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
- 200mm f4.0D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor

I use them on a F100, D100, and D2x, often with the Sigma ring flash.

Here is a sample from the 200mm

How can I help?

Nuno

Nikon D700

04/26/2005 07:46:07 PM · #12

Good photo Morgan!

One question as you've offered to help. In a point of view of real life size magnification (1:1) what is the working distance between the 105mm and the 200mm? This is, to get the same filling of the viewfinder at what distance will you be in either lens?

And a second question: how much do you like the 105mm, and do you use it for portraits as well?

Tanks.

04/26/2005 07:57:51 PM · #13

Originally posted by Morgan:

How can I help?

Well, for starters, it looks like you need some help unloading all that nice gear of yours ;)

At this point I've already placed the order, so anything you can do to convince me I've made the right decision will help me sleep over the next 2 weeks! Any reason to think I won't be reduced to quivering jello when the box arrives?

04/27/2005 08:05:45 AM · #14

Originally posted by cghubbell:

Originally posted by Morgan:
How can I help?

Well, for starters, it looks like you need some help unloading all that nice gear of yours ;)

At this point I've already placed the order, so anything you can do to convince me I've made the right decision will help me sleep over the next 2 weeks! Any reason to think I won't be reduced to quivering jello when the box arrives?

Well, first of all, congratulations on your purchase of this lens. It has a long a history as a serious performer and is highly regarded. The first time that I ever saw one was at my buddy's dentist office. He used it to document his restoration work and for "before and after" studies. His work was functionally perfect and helped patients a great deal. He also teaches dentistry at the University of Toronto, so his images were used for education too.

My own interest in this lens was just for fun. I like photography that is unusual and as a result, I tend to have lens of very long focal length - Nikkors, such as the 80mm-400mm VR, 500mm f8.0 catadioptric, and 1000mm f11.0 catadioptric. So, the micros were a natural extension to my interest of going in close to the subject and isolating it. I prefer simplistic, clean images with just one element of focus for the viewer. Which is why I never win anything here at DPC.

Over the years, I have tried reversing rings, extension tubes, close-up lens adapters, slit lamps, endoscopic, electron microscopes, and more. Funny enough, I have never owned bellows, but they are next on my list.

This lens is unique in the world of photography and has many uses. The one feature that you will discover with this lens is the incredible flat field of focus. It is linear and completely uniform. When I shoot images of circuit boards, ASICs, or integrated circuits, this feature is essential. A lessor lens with lower uniformity is easily exposed as inferior in this type of application. So, you have made a fine purchase decision.

I would like to offer you one suggestion. Find yourself a good ring flash to go along with this lens. It greatly enhances the usefulness and the capabilities of the lens. For several years, I used the Nikon SB-29s, which was perfect for film cameras like my F5s or F100s. But, it was never upgraded for D-TTL, or even the newer i-TTL. I grew tired of waiting on Nikon. I suspect that they outsource this product and it is not a core product, so I decided to break ranks and hunt for an alternative.

Therefore, I recently traded-in the SB-29s for the newly released Sigma EM-140DG. The EM-140DG Ring Flash is ideal for shooting small items in fine detail when you do not want any shadows and is very good for my high technology macro work.

The dual flash tubes can fire simultaneously or separately. Using only one flash tube creates a shadow, which can give a three-dimensional feeling to the subject. Very cool.

Have fun with your new lens and I look forward to seeing your teenie-weenie close-up results win many challenges here at DPC.

Cheers, Michael ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-27 08:11:10.

04/27/2005 08:37:41 AM · #15

Originally posted by Nuno:

Interesting question. You really got me thinking way too early in the morning.

I was considering walking down two floors to the basement to look on the lenses to read the 1:1 focusing points and then give you an answer. But, then the thought crossed my mind that that might not be a valid response?

For example, 1:1 indicates that the object you are shooting is reproduced in its real life size on the film or chip. So, if you are shooting a 1" diameter coin, then it would be scaled to the same 1" dimension in the image. But what about a larger diameter object? Let's say, a Frisbee that might be 10". I am thinking that it may be hard to say that 1:1 is fixed on one lens at "X" distance and at "Y" distance on another lens. Since 1:1 is actually a ratio of the object being photographed versus the scale of the object on the image. Does that logic make any sense?

Maybe someone smarter than I can offer you a better or perhaps clearer answer. In the meantime, I will check the lens barrel scale ratios later this morning and post them here.

Good question. I look forward to reading what other folks have to say on the subject. To tell the truth, I just choose the lens based upon the distance and then do my work visually. It has been 30 years since I learned this stuff in photography school, so it is long lost in the back cobwebs of my little grey cells.

I hope this response helps or perhaps stimulates a better, smarter response from another participant here at DPC.

With regards to your second question, I have used the 105mm f2.8D micro for regular photography from time to time, but not too often. Why? Because, I also own the Nikkor 85mm f1.4D and the 105mm f2.0D DC lenses, which I would select before choosing the 105mm f2.8 micro. Using a D100 and a D2x adds a 1.5x magnification ratio to the lens and often the 105mm focal length can be a bit too long for my style of portraiture.

The 60mm f2.8D micro is an amazing lens and I often use it for general purpose photography applications. It's stunningly sharp, has a superior flat field of view, and offers a practical focal length on a digital SLR. I like the sharpness of this lens as it reveals incredible detail in hair and eyelashes.

I own several zoom lenses too, and they tend to fill the general purpose role most of the time - AFS 17mm-35mm f2.8D, AFS 28mm-70mm f2.8D, 28mm-200mm f3.5-f5.6G, and AFS 70mm-200mm f2.8G VR.

The AFS 28mm-70mm f2.8D is the lens on the D2x 50% of the time. And, the 28mm-200mm f3.5-f5.6G is on the D100 80% of the time.

Cheers, Michael ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-27 08:55:01.