105mm vs 70-200 for Food Photography

<p>I'm interested in getting the Nikkor 105 macro but with the price tag I can't help but wonder why I shouldn't wait another six months or so and save for the versatility of the 70-200. <br /><br />The price tag is obviously beyond my skill level, but I feel like it would be an investment that I would use and grow into rather than a Tamron I would eventually replace and pay handsomely for in the end.<br /><br />My question is what are the actual pros and cons of using a 105 prime vs a 70-200 set to around the same focal length. Or for that matter, the 80-200. I'd be shooting food and other object photography. <br /><br />I've come to find out the lens production differences between macro and regular lenses, but at what point do the changes become noticeable. Would the distortion from a 70-200 really be that significant for whats considered to be one of Nikon's best lenses?<br>

I would definitely get use out of the rest of the focal length on the 70-200. </p>

<p>Close focus on the 70-200 might be a problem. The older VR lens has a minimum focussing distance of around 5'. The 105 micro can get you to several inches from your subject should you need to get that close.</p>

<p>The 105mm macro and the 70-200mm f/2.8 are very different lenses, although many photographers (including myself) use them interchangeably for some purposes (namely people portraiture). The one thing to understand is minimum focus distance: the macro lens can focus extremely close, whereas the 70-200 has a much longer minimum focus distance.</p>

<p>You may not need either lens for shooting food. Many food photogs I know use a simple mid-range zoom or a tilt-shift lens. If you are looking to get 1:1 with other objects you shoot, then the macro lens would be good. If not, then a mid-range zoom (not a 70-200) or a tilt-shift would be a better option.</p>

<p>I would rent both to see how each fits with your style of shooting before buying. I will say that both are phenomenal pieces of equipment. The 70-200 is a very sharp lens with versatility, but the 105 macro is in a totally different league in terms of sharpness and detail in my opinion.</p>

<p>What format camera are we talking about?<br /><br />If I were to pick a general-use food lens and didn't want to spend money on a tilt-shift, it would probably be a 60mm macro. Nikon's 60/2.8 Micro is perfect for that stuff, since you don't have to climb on another table across the room to shoot a whole place setting.</p>

I've been doing food photography for years. I primarily use a 28-105, and also have a Sigma 105mm macro, which is tack

sharp. If you haven't learned about food and product photography yet, I'd suggest starting with some classes, because it's

a lot more difficult than you might imagine. You'll also need to have lighting gear and know how to use it. I took several of

the food photography classes at ppsop.com, and came a long, LONG way thanks to them!

<p>They are both versatile lenses, some people would like both. For what you are doing, I would buy the 105 first<br>

and then the 70-200 later. Handling would be a plus for the 105. You could always buy it used from a reputable<br>

source, that takes some of the $ pain away.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is one of the most useful lenses most photographers can own but I agree that it probably doesn't focus close enough without an extension tube, and Nikon's two-element closeup lenses aren't big enough for its front element, and it's very expensive.<br />If you want to do closeup work cheap, Nikon makes a couple of high-quality, two-element closeup lenses. I think they are the 5T and 6T. But the diameter is around 62mm so whether they will work for you depends on what lens you already own that you would put them on.<br />Another low-cost laternative is the old manual focus 55mm 3.5 Micro-Nikkor. It focuses down to 1:2 on its own and 1:1 with a PK-13 extension tube (not that you really need to go that close). You don't need AF for closeup work. Since there is no AF compatability to worry about, it will work on pretty much any NIKON SLR or DSLR as long as you get the Ai version or later.</p>

<p>What have you got so-far? Both camera and lens info needed!</p>

<p>If you've got a DX camera and a 18-105mm, set up a 'typical'* shot and see <strong>where</strong> in the focal range you want to be, given the room available and the angles needed. By angles I mean if you want an almost vertical shot (down) of something 500mm across, you'll need to be pretty high up with a 105mm to get it all in with a DX sensor. If you're @ about 40mm, get a 40mm macro.....if your're @ 60mm get a 60mm macro...if you're @ 105mm get a 105mm macro....you get the idea.</p>

<p>However, if you're only getting <strong>one</strong> lens, you'll potentially need a zoom macro. The only one that comes to mind is the older 24-85mm AFD f2.8>4 that will get you to half-size or 1:2.</p>

<p>If you're FX, you won't need so much distance between you and the food (for a given focal length)....but the perspective will change.</p>

<p>Devon, are you DX or FX for those lenses?....I'd guess FX.</p>

<p>* I know there's probably no-such thing, but it will help to get this idea started!</p>

<p>i wouldnt use a 70-200 for close-up photography. the 28-105 will do 1:2 macro, the 105 gets you to 1:1.</p>

<p>When I shoot table-top stuff (which I do often), I always reach for the 60mm Micro first.</p>

<p>When I shoot table-top stuff (which I do often), I always reach for the 60mm Micro first.</p>

<p>Wow. Thanks all for the great responses. </p>

<p>Dan C: As asked a couple of times about, can you mention what camera format you're using? DX vs FX really does alter this entire line of questioning.</p>

<p>Sorry, pretty slammed at work. <br>

Right now I'm on DX -- D7000. The only reason I'm interested in the 70-200 is I have a focal to fill the missing length caused by the magnification of FX on a DX sensor and I plan on buying an FX body sometime in the near future. I'd rather by nice glass once and put up with the difference in the length for the time being. </p>

Get one of the older Nikkor micro lenses that are manual focus. They are very, very good - better than any non-macro lens for close up work. I have the 105mm f4 and the 55mm f3.5. Newbies don't buy these lenses so they can be found for a low price. I think I paid $50 or something ridiculous like that for my 55mm.

<p>I shoot for a local culinary magazine and my 2 most used lenses (shooting FX) are the 60 AF-S macro and the 24-70 2.8, with an almost even split between them. I have a 70-200, but rarely (never) reach for it for this usage. Also used the 105 VR for a while, but was just too long in many situations - restaurants are often fairly cramped environments - so I sold it. I also have a 85 PC, which on paper should be ideal, but as time is often a factor I do most of my food shooting hand-held (gasp!), so this bad boy usually stays at home.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, both the 70-200 and the 105 are superb lenses, just that - IMHO - there are better choices for this usage. </p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>Food comes in all sorts of different sizes, but I would imagine that you want a short macro lens such as 60mm, give or take, to cover, e.g., the entire plate, especially since you are using a DX body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I feel like it would be an investment that I would use and grow into rather than a Tamron I would eventually replace and pay handsomely for in the end.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When it comes to Macro lenses, I wouldn't think up front you'll end up replacing a Tamron/Sigma/... eventually. The Nikkors aren't vastly better, or better put, the 3rd party lenses are about as good for a whole lot less money. So, buying a Tamron 90mm macro today isn't wasted money by any means.<br>

But I wouldn't look for the 90mm.... For DX, I would personally strongly consider the 40mm f/2.8 DX or Tokina 35mm macro, or a 60mm macro (be it the Tamron, be it Nikon). Sigma has a 50mm and 70mm macro too - all worth considering.</p>

<p>+1 to what Wouter just said. Tamron's 90mm SP has been my "goto" macro lens for years, and for more than just macro work. It's one of the sharpest lenses in my arsenal - including a lately acquired 105mm AF Micro-Nikkor, which it marginally beats on field-flatness and lack of CA. The Tammy's build quality might look and feel a bit plasticky, but it shows no sign of wearing out or becoming sloppy after more than 5 years pretty regular use.</p>

<p>PS. I use FX DSLRs exclusively, YMMV on DX cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“My question is what are the actual pros and cons of using a 105 prime vs a 70-200 set to around the same focal length. Or for that matter, the 80-200. I'd be shooting food and other object photography.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a 105mm f/2.5 prime and an 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom. Both are great lenses and normal camera to subject distance. However, neither lens would be my first choice for obtaining quality images at macro and/or close-up distances.</p>

<p>I would much rather use a macro prime lens (such as a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro) or a macro zoom lens (such as a Nikon 70-180mm f/4.5 to f/5.6 macro). Either lens would allow me to obtain higher quality macro and/or close-up images.</p>

<p><a href="

<div></div>

<p>A lot to digest here. Thanks a lot for your time everyone. </p>