Anything better than the Nikon 105 AF-D micro?

<p>Hello,<br>

I am hoping for suggestions to improve my photography.<br>

As a seasoned macro shooter, I have used the 105 AF-D macro for probably 80 percent or more of my shoots, though that number is going down as I use more wide-angles and try to add telephoto to my art. I have recently discovered medium format.<br>

I seriosly have bags of boxes of "unsheathed" slides, just sitting in their cardboard.<br>

And so know I'm thinking about how to keep my photography from growing stale.<br>

I need advice about other macro lenses in this range.<br>

I have recently bought a 105 4.0 AIS macro which I hear is legendary for quality.<br>

I'm thinking since I take so many shoots with 100, I should look into:</p>

<p>Nikon micro 70-180 (which I imagine needs a tripod)<br>

Zeiss 100 2.0 macro (maybe wait for chipping)<br>

Nikon 105 2.8 VR (which I heard is more of a jack of all trades lens)<br>

Nikon 80-400 VR with canon 500D<br>

and possibly a sigma 150 2.8</p>

<p>I have heard of a voigth 125 but have no hope of finding one.</p>

<p>I already have a selection of zooms which can be used with diopters.<br>

I just need a 100x micro with legendary "pop," to keep me from going one lens stale or photo blind.</p>

<p>Thanks for your opinions.<br>

Matt</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 70-180 will give you no additional working distance over the 105 you already have - it is easily hand-holdable though. Prices for this lens have sky-rocketed - not sure I would be willing to spend more than $1600 for a used one. 80-400 with 500D works in a pinch, but will never compare well with what you already have. One lens that is missing from your list is the Leica 100/2.8 APO - which can easily be adapted to a Nikon via the Leitax Nikon F-mount; used lenses are available in the $1000-1500 range. Stop-down metering is a bit of a pain though. I do have the Sigma 150/2.8 and am very happy with it - I purchased it mostly for the additional working distance over my 70-180 and to use wide-open as a medium tele.</p>

<p>If you can't find the Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO in Nikon F-mount, you can put that money toward a Zeiss 100/2 ZF. Still have cash left over? Get the micro Nikkor 200/4 AF ED/IF too.</p>

<p>Thanks.<br>

I have the 200 4.0. <br>

I just need pop and pizase as a macro shooter.<br>

What 105x matches best to digital?</p>

<p>Matt</p>

<p>The 200mm should give you that. I have the 55, 105, and 200. The length I use least is the 105.</p>

<p>If the Nikkor won't do it, I don't know what can.</p>

<p>I am not sure what you expect to achieve by getting another 100mm or so macro lens that you can't do already. The 100mm ZF is outstanding as it is very fast, is sharp across the frame wide open and has very shallow and smooth bokeh. But even then the difference in performance between the ZF and the 105mm VR is not going to be night and day - just night and twilight!</p>

<p>I know people who are photo blind, and own every lens you can think of.</p>

<p>I agree with James, a different lens in the same focal range isn't going to change very much (at all).</p>

<p>The 85mm f2.8 PC or a Nikon 20mm f3.5 and slim extension ring can offer new ways to see things. </p>

<p>Matthew, seems like you are looking for a new lens in order to keep from going "photo stale". Instead of a new lens, what about investing in lighting kit instead?</p>

<p>E.g.<br>

<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/SbOMjtCnjwI/AAAAAAAAC-4/wWpU3_cnmIo/s1600-h/DSC_9368_thumb.jpg">Dragonfly Nymph Shell</a><br>

<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/SbzXdc5rT2I/AAAAAAAAC_o/bSo8izqRTXw/s400/thumb_DSC_9719_1.jpg">Plant of some sort?</a></p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>PS: Please ignore the borders... they are shot on my d200.</p>

Hands down the Zeiss 100mm f/2 macro, it is one of the best performing lenses available for an slr ever made.

<blockquote>

<p>I am hoping for suggestions to improve my photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matthew, I took a quick look at your web site listed under your photo.net membership page: <a href="http://www.wildflowerartphotography.com/">http://www.wildflowerartphotography.com/</a></p>

<p>I know the same comment can be made on any portfolio, but I think there is clearly room for your images to improve. If you really want to get better, post some of your favorite images for critique and let people give you honest feedback on how they can be better. That is how you learn and improve.</p>

<p>Another way to broaden your photography is to start shooting something other than (flower) macros. If you like nature, there is landscape, there is wildlife ....</p>

<p>The last thing you want is another 105mm macro lens. I don't care how sharp the Zeiss 100mm/f2 macro lens is; you'll only be carrying more dead weight into the field. By far the majority of macro shots are captured at small apertures to gain depth of field. Think about whether you really need f2 for macro. I know it is very easy to come up with justifications such as "f2 will give me a brighter viewfinder image for focusing." All of us need to improve our technique; another similar lens is simply not the answer. You already have very fine macros lenses.</p>

<p>A very common problem for macro shots is a cluttered and distracting background. That is a very good starting point to improve anybody's macro photography.</p>

<p>I much prefer my Nikon 200mm f 4.0 AF macro lens to my 105 f 2.8 AF D macro lens in that it gives me greater working distance from the subject and more control over backgrounds. It also has a tripod collar mount which the 105mm macro lens lacks. Use of a tripod is one way to improve your images. I use the 200mm lens in manual focus mode. Joe Smith</p>

<p>You could get a Kiron 105/2.8 in a Nikon mount or the Leica with a Leitax mentioned above , which IMHO is a little better than than the Nikkor, but it won't improve your shooting. Only work, work, and more work...a little photo education, and experimenting will do that.</p>

<p>Like Shun, I had a quick look at your web page, and reached similar conclusions. A lot can be gained by fine-tuning your technique and the way you "see" and isolate your subjects. Plus, sunshine isn't best for close-ups of most flowers. Since flowers tend to be a small subject in the greater setting of nature, it's fairly easy to arrange your own lighting of them to achieve more pleasing results too.</p>

<p>However, the assertion that is is typical for "macro" shots to be shot at small apertures need to be challenged. In fact, close-ups of these subjects can be done in any fashion you can imagine, with any lens, and at any aperture setting. I've used fisheyes, ultra-wide, zoom lenses, superlong lenses, f/0.7 to f/256 apertures, in short, use the imagination and don't let your shooting be boxed in by preconceived rules.</p>

<p>The 70-180 Nikkor zoom is a nice lens. It is the only real macro zoom available and very helpful if you shoot fast moving small animals like this one:<br /> http://whschroeder.com/html/family.html<br /> I got many shots like that in the near range and down to macro range that I would have missed without the very rapid change in focal length and focus.</p>

<p>The image quality however, is not better than any of the mentioned lenses. Actually wide open it is not as good as a dedicated prime macro lens. But as Shun already pointed out above most beginners macro shots are shot at small apertures and beyond f 11 all macro lenses are alike^^ (a crude generalization but close to the truth).</p>

<p>So looking at the plant images in your portfolio I guess the zoom would be convenient but not really necessary.</p>

<p>In your case I would check if all the accessories for macro are available. A good tripod that can be used near ground, ground covers for wet soil and some folding light reflectors and perhaps two flashes and / or a ring-flash.</p>

<p>Practicing composition would also help more than a new lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No. <br>

:-)</p>

<p>Matt,<br>

After looking at your portfolio, I agree with the excellent advice from Shun and Bjorn. Investment in lighting is likely to lead to most improvement. Also more interest in and reading about macro composition.</p>

<p>Since the subject of your website has come up, I will venture an opinion. You used the word, "pop". Several of you images could be made to pop with proper adjustments in software such as lightroom 2. I cannot agree with Bjorn at all about sunlight. I would like to see some examples of how artificial lighting is superior to sunlight. <br>

Please don't get mad at me for saying so, but I think you should go back to the drawing board a little bit. I like flowers, and I think you need to improve your presentation of them before spending money in an area where returns will be slight at best.</p>

<p>I'm a little suprised nobody has given much notice to the Tamron 90mm.2.5 adaptall lens,a truly great lens!!</p>

<p>Oh before I forget you should be able to pick up the Tamron 90mm.for a very reasonable price in the used market, say around 250$got mine for 50$</p>

<p>I didn't say anything about artificial light, only that few flowers are best to shoot in direct sunlight. That's a world of difference.</p>

<p>One way to clean cluttered backgrounds is to use a larger aperture; the other is to use a longer macro lens (with its narrower angle of view the background is easier to control and simplify). The 100/2 ZF is excellent at wide apertures and with a bit of experimentation it's not difficult to make visually attractive close-ups with shallow DOF. An added benefit is the increased shutter speed which helps with flowers when there are slight traces of wind. The 105 AF (D) is somewhat difficult to focus precisely as the MF ring is geared too fast. It is good stopped down to f/8- f/11 but at wider apertures it was quite far from what the 100mm can do in my brief comparative testing. The wider the aperture and the bigger the magnification (and the further away from center of frame you look) the more obvious the differences. For f/11 shooting the 105 AF D Micro is a nice lens certainly. But if you want to experiment with wider apertures (or if you're like me and frustrated with focusing the AF D lens) then there exist some lenses that solve these issues.</p>

<p>I upgraded from the Nikkor you ask about to the Zeiss ZF 100mm Makro Planar f/2.0<br>

It's 3.5x the price and just a beautiful lens. If you never upgrade, you'll never notice the difference. that one you have is damn near perfect. if you want to sell it on Ebay and plunk another $1000 down, get the Zeiss. Wait for the Chip. Or have only one AIS lens.</p>

<p>I second Joe Smith. I have the 60/2.8 AFS, 105 VR and 200/4 AF. Get the 200 and a really good tripod and use the tripod. You may not get a higher percentage of good shots, but the good ones will be better. I still use all three, and sometime use the 70-300 VR zoom at 300mm since it focuses to 4.9 feet for 1:4 reproduction ratio. I find each lens has its own attributes and all are optically excellent.</p>

<p>Please re-read what the OP wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have the 200 4.0.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure exactly which version, but he already has the 200mm/f4 macro.</p>