200mm f4 micro afd for 105 vr

Am I crazy for wanting to trade in the Nikon micro 200mm afd for a nikon 105 vr? I feel like the 105 vr would do more for me with the f2.8

to the VR. I want to do more then bugs and when I am doing bugs I like to employee a technique where I take two photos, one at the

smallest aperture (f4 on current lens) then another at f11 - 16. Then in photoshop i combine them and you have a nice pleasing diffused

back with the subject all in focus. However i feel f/4 does not blurr enough. Want to do shots like this: http://500px.com/kalheo

 

Additionally I would love to have Vr for home aquarium photography of tiny fish (neon tetras and the like)

 

Overall I can only have one of these power houses and am worried if I go to the 105 am I going to regret it. :(

I'd have thought you'd want the working distance for bugs (some use the 300 f/4!) The 200 is a one-trick pony, if a good one. The 105 is a decent portrait lens as well, if you want an all-rounder.

 

Split the difference: Have you considered the 150mm f/2.8 OS Sigma? (Or the 180mm if you miss the focal length). I'm very

happy with my 150, and use it much more than my 90mm Tamron.

Good points Andrew. I think you nailed it with the one-trick pony comment. Hmm. How does the image quality compare on that sigma? One thing I dislike about the sigmas is that they dont hold their value like nikon lenses.

<p>Your looking at the wrong Sigmas. I can sell my 120-300 f/2.8 for what I paid for it in 08. I would bet I could sell my 35mm f/1.4 for very close to what I paid for it.</p>

<p>Also I am not so sure I would call the 200 Micro a one trick pony. It has the best IQ of all the Micro Nikkor's by a long shot. I see no reason that the lens would not be able to produce those types of images.</p>

Looking for more opinions thanks.

<p>Scroll through his list and see what he has to say about the 105 AFS and the 200 f/4</p>

<p>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html</p>

<p>Your current lens will blur just fine, using the technique you described, depending on your distance from the subject and from the background. Using f2.8 won't appreciable change that, although being closer to your subject to get the same image size could. Personally, I think the lens you have is just fine for what you describe, especially as it gives additional working distance between the camera and subject.</p>

Nathan: Photo zone have tested the 150mm OS Sigma, albeit on Canon. Image quality is extremely good,

and I've seen a number of people, like me, happy to use it on a D800e. It's not quite as sharp at infinity as

at portrait band's lower range, in my experience, but as LensRentals discovered nor is the 105mm Nikkor.

The Sigma is also nearly free of LoCA, a trick for which I otherwise rely on my 200 f/2; the 70-200, for

example, is less good at this. The Sigma has replaced my 135 f/2 (whose LoCA I couldn't live with) when I

don't want the size or reach of the 200 f/2, and obviously it has none of the minimum focus distance

limitations.

 

 

I *am* on my second sample, after the focus mechanism on my first broke, but I got a new lens under

warranty.

 

 

Bear in mind that a longer lens will do a better job of blurring the background for the same aperture: At

given framing, a short depth of field stays roughly the same irrespective of focal length because the

relative aperture size means the entrance aperture appears the same size from the subject - focal length

and distance from subject to lens cancel out. However, the background will be magnified more by a longer

lens, and therefore appear more blurred. If you want subject isolation but still have enough depth of field

for the subject in a single shot, I'd aim towards longer lenses. Hence the popularity of a 300 f/4 for

dragonflies and my choice of a longer rather than shorter f/2.8 macro.

 

 

Perhaps try out the focal lengths in question (do you have a zoom in this range?) and see what you prefer?

But I wouldn't be afraid of the Sigma from an image quality perspective. This is not like the old 28-300mm

Sigma "macro" zoom that I owned.

1) I suspect you will get as much background blur if not more with 200mm/F4 than with 105mm/F2.8;

 

2) the examples you show are nowhere near 1:1, more like 1:5 at the most and do not require a macro lens. Have you tried the 300mm F4 AFS? This will really blur backgrounds, although maybe you want a shorter focal length for some of these perspectives. Given the modest magnification you could really use anything you want.

Here's a crop from 300mm F4 on D700, probably shot at f11 or f16

The only reason you do not get a blurred background at f/4 is that you are not shooting at macro distance. Shooting macro at f/4 with my 100mm I am lucky if I get 1mm of depth... I shoot most macro at f/8 and still need stacking most of the time just to get the whole insect in focus...

<blockquote>

<p>The only reason you do not get a blurred background at f/4 is that you are not shooting at macro distance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think those are his photos. But yes, OP should find out what equipment was used for the photos he wants to emulate. They may well not make use of a macro lens.</p>

Those images are done with a 100mm f2.8 fyi says right on her page. Additionally while its true that moving closer to the subject will blur

the background more it will also ruin the artistic composition. I am more interested in artistic nature photography then the nat geo

documentary style.

<p>I have not seen where it says what they where shot with. If it is a 100 f/2.8 then it is not a Nikon. Canon makes a fine 100mm Macro and maybe that is what they are using.</p>

<p>I really think you should try to get the best out of the lens you have rather then chasing a silver bullet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I am more interested in artistic nature photography then the nat geo documentary style.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I think the focal lenght is not that important at all, unless you were looking for a very specific effect that only a certain lens can provide. Don`t know about the technique you mention, but actually, with a wider aperture you`ll get a shallower DoF.</p>

<p>I think my decission would be based on the working distance, the background control (angle) and the convenience of the VR or the tripod feet. With a 200mm, and given that the linked photos are more close ups than real macro shots, it will be so comfortable to shoot that kind of subjects. Personally, I´d keep the 200.</p>

<p>In the other side, the versatility of the 105VR is really high, specially for that acquarium photos.</p>

<p>My understanding is that the blur circle increases with the focal length, therefore you would have a better blur with a shorter lens. I use the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 and get perfect blur at f/4 shooting at a distance and also perfect blur at f/8 at macro distance. Here is a link explaining the different aspects impacting blur: http://lewiscollard.com/technical/background-blur/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those images are done with a 100mm f2.8 fyi says right on her page.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still think that the main difference between 105VR and 200 micro will be the perspective, which is definitely different.</p>

<p>Nick is right....you are getting more perspective compression with the 200mm...</p>

<p>I agree with Stephen's comments. And the 200mm f 4.0 lens has a tripod collar mount which the 105 lacks. I much prefer the greater working distance of a 200mm macro lens and I love the tripod collar mount. (I also have the older 105mm AF D macro lens.) And the manual for the 105 mm macro VR says to turn VR off when using it at macro /close distances. The Sigma 150mm macro lens has the tripod collar mount and is an excellent choice but it is very expensive too. Joe Smith</p>

Joseph have you seen the price of the nikon 200f4 talk about expensive.

<p>Line: Well, yes. The perspective compression is why the background is larger relative to the subject with the longer lens, and therefore why the background will appear more out of focus at the same relative aperture. The ratio of distance-to-subject and distance-to-background has a big effect on blur. It's true that if you actually want bits of the background defined in the scene, you need a wider lens; I quite like being able to use a longer lens to crop out rubbish (not so good when trying to shoot straight down) - but it also helps that I don't have to be standing <i>in</i> the flower bed to take the shot. :-)<br />

<br />

As Joe says, the 150mm has a collar; it's probably big enough to need it - I used that lens to test the sag on an Arca Z1 by supporting it only from the L-plate on my camera, and there <i>was</i> say (though it might have been in the camera or tripod rather than the Z1). The previous version, without OS, seems to be quite well-regarded as well if you want to save money, though the OS isn't much more than the 105mm VR. I got one as the longest f/2.8 macro lens I could find, although Sigma have since updated their (much more expensive) 180mm to f/2.8.<br />

<br />

You can, of course, cheat: Take an out-of-focus shot of some grass, print it, then position it behind the subject. Although doing this with an active insect may be tricky.</p>

<p>I'll trade you my 105 f2.8 AF-S for a 200mm f4....</p>

<p>I owned both at the same time, and kept the 200. Never regretted that decision. Of course, YMMV.</p>

<p>C</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...when I am doing bugs I like to employee a technique where I take two photos, one at the smallest aperture (f4 on current lens) then another at f11 - 16.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For macro nature images, I like the 200mm way over the 105. I like it so much I had to replace the one that I dropped into salt water (ouch!) some time ago. Not sure about the creative idea you have, typically F/2.8 does not work well for bugs in general. YMMV.<br /> <br /> These two images were shot with this lens today after the rain,<strong> f/16 & f/11</strong> respectively. Isn't the background blurry enough? In fact, I wish the first photo (f/16) has more depth of field on the praying mantis.</p>

<p>Oops, here they are:</p>

<div></div>

Mary,

 

What I described is a technique to allow the one to photograph a subject that cannot be manipulated (like in your photos, ie grabbing the

perch the insect is on because it is immobilized by the cold of morning and holding it up high with a distant background in order to shoot

at f11 - f16 for the diffused background). You would take one shot at f2.8 then another at f11 to f16. Then in photoshop you combine the

two making a selective mask to have the soft background with the detailed insect. This also allows for some rather creative an artistic

opportunities (butterfly in a sea of soft flowers).

 

Thanks for all the opinions I have made up my mind.