Nikon 200mm micro vs Canon 180mm macro

I'm in the enviable (I suppose) position of being able to choose a

long macro lens for the work I do. I can use either Canon or Nikon.

What I'm wondering is, after reading all the threads that deal with

either but not both together, which one is better? Has anyone used

both and walked away with a preference?

A partical answer. In chooseing between the Pentax and Nikon 200mm macros (Manual focus lenses) I went with Pentax. It was one of my main reasons for sticking with the Pentax system actually. Sorry, can't help you with Canon though.

I would guess that very few people would be so familiar with both of these lenses that they can give you an informative answer. I have been using the Nikon 200mm/f4 AF for several years and it is an excellent lens, but I would imagine that the Canon lens is excellent as well. Any quality difference is probably insignificant. I think it is more like which camera system or which camera body you are happier with.

 

Since we are talking about macro shots, do you need mirror lock up? Among current Nikon bodies, only the F5 has real mirror lock up, but you can get that with the F4, F3 or some much older bodies such as the Nikkormat FT3, etc. MLU is available on more Canon bodies and for good reasons some people prefer the way the Canon mirror lock up works since Nikon forces you to use the all manual M mode with MLU. If you really specalize in macro, that kind of difference could be decisive. And of course if you have any plans to move onto digital SLRs, there are a lot of differences too.

 

So instead of concerning about any minor differences between the Canon and Nikon macro lenses, I suggest that you compare the difference between the Nikon and Canon camera bodies that you might be interested in, including the high-eyepoint viewfinder differences, MLU operation differences, DSLR selections, etc. etc. You might want to rent a few camera bodies you are interested in and try them out yourself.

Nikon 200 is an excellent lens, I have no experience with Canon but expect them to be pretty equivalent and this shouldn't be a decisive factor. Since Nikon 200 is long and attached to tripod via the collar on the lens (so is Canon) MLU is very likely to improve image crispness in certain speeds as Shun mentions. Phil G has a review of the Canon in the static content.

The Canon lens is optically excellent, but autofocus is notoriously bad -- to the point of effectively being a manual focus lens. The focus limiter helps, but not that much. That said, I rarely use it in situations where autofocus is useful to me (I always use manual focus for macro work), so I don't really notice the problem. Sorry I couldn't really answer your question, especially if you already knew this tidbit of info.

For macro work, typically AF is pretty much useless anyway, although some people do use macro AF to chase insects, etc. There are exceptions to just about any rule.

 

The Nikon 200mm/f4 AF isn't an AF-S lens, so its AF isn't particularly fast either although it is OK. Again, I mainly use it as a manaul-focus lens anyway. I also feel that it is not quite as sharp at infinity compared to my 80-200mm/f2.8 zoom at 200mm. But that may also be a moot point since it is a very specalized macro lens.

 

Georg, do you already have (access to) both Canon EOS and Nikon camera bodies or you can buy into either system? If you already have cameras from both brands, you need to decide which camera you prefer for macro work. If you are buying into a brand, unless you are very specalized into macro photography, you really should consider the entire camera system. For example, Canon has a lot more IS lenses and tilt/shift lenses while there are a lot more modern DSLRs with Nikon lens mount (from Fuji and Kodak in addition to Nikon itself) to choose from, although most of them don't have MLU.

Shun, I already have both systems. I've done and do macro work with both and don't prefer one over the other. I bought into Canon primarily for its long IS lenses, which Nikon hasn't deigned to offer. The long macro lenses from both companies seem a toss-up on paper. Pity that we don't have IS on these long lenses. I feel it helps - certainly doesn't hurt.

I agree with the comments made by Shun in his first post and would add, Depth of field Preview is a good option for close up work. If one system offers Mirror lock up and Depth of Field Preview and the other don't then the choice is easy. All else equal flip a coin.

Having owned both, I found no discernable difference in optics or quality (I didn't do any critical testing). One thing I like about the Canon 180mm is that you can use a Canon 1.4x or 2.0x telecoverter and still maintain all the electronic connections with the camera's metering. With Nikon, you need an off brand TC (like a Tamron, etc.) to maintain those connections; the Nikon TC-14e isn't designed for the Nikon 200mm. That may save room in your bag. Also, I believe the Nikon 200mm uses a screw on hood (a beefy metal one it seems like I may have had to purchase separately), and the Canon 180mm comes with a hood with a bayonet mount that I prefer. Of course, I haven't found a camera body that I like as well as Nikon's F5. And I don't think Canon's bodies show effective aperture like Nikon's do.

I own the Canon 180mm macro and find using the Canon 1.4X TC and 2X TC without tubes etc very useful on it. Optics are very good on the bare lens and still very acceptable with the TC's.

Georg. (HOpe this is not too late.)

 

I have the Nikon 200m AIS micro lens and it is really nice and much much cheaper than the Canon lens. I suggest you consider it. The optical quality is excellent. I have seen slight achromatism at F11 but you need to look hard on a 12x8 print to see it. Otherwise it is very sharp. You can see example piccies at:

 

http://mysite.freeserve.com/ukfungi

 

Go to the dragonflies gallery. I have 12x8 prints of some of these pictures and they are tack sharp. I am impressed that 35mm film can produce such detail.

 

Th eonly problem with the lens will be vibrations though I find a beanbag can cure this.

 

Don't worry that it does not have a matrix chip. I had a matrx chip installed by Rolland Elliot (in the USA).