Nikon 80-200 f2.8 or 300 f4 what to get?

[brian_m._fieldwick]

Hi

Thanks to all that answered my enquiry on Nikon vs Kenko tubes. I'm going to get the Nikon,s due to the quality.

I am using a Nikon AF 105 f2.8 micro on F90x. I have a limited budget[don't we all?]and wish to get another Nikon lens. The question is what should I get. I plan on doing a lot of macro and after reading John Shaw's book Closeups in Nature I am not sure whether the zoom or the prime will be better. If I put a two element Nikon close up lens [5T diopter]on the zoom I can get down to a maginification of 3/5x at 15 inches.

If I get the 300 and add 80mm of extention I can get a magnification of 1/2x at a working distance of 38 inches.

The prime is a slower lens but I think it should be sharper while the zoom will give me a larger magnification if needed as I could use a lower diopter to get a lesser magnification.

The advantage of the prime is it can also be used for bird and small mammal photography and add a multiplier and I can have a 450mm f5.6.

Can anyone give me some suggestions on which to buy?

Also will the Nikon SB 28 be too powerfull to use with the 105 micro?

Thanks in advance.

[chris_mysen]

What is it about the 105 micro that doesn't seem to work for you? Is it working distance? It seems like overkill to me to get an thousand dollar 80-200 if all you intend only to use it for macro-type work. From general opinions around here, it seems like most people agree that the 80-200 isn't an amazingly useful lens, however high quality. The 300/4, on the other hand, can be useful for basic wildlife, sports, etc... and a teleconverter will get you more flexibility.

[stanley_mcmanus]

"From general opinions around here, it seems like most people agree that the 80-200 isn't an amazingly useful lens, however high quality."

 

<p>

 

Huh? I can't agree with the above statement. My 80-200 f/2.8 is the lens I use most often. If I could only take one lens with me on a trip that would be the one. Maybe I am atypical.

[james_harrison]

I couldn't agree more with Stanley on the usefulness of the 80-200, but not for macro work. Unless I am missing out on something (entirely possible), the 5T close up lens fits 62mm filter threads. The 80-200 f2.8 has 77mm filter threads.

[paul_wilson2]

James, what you're missing is that the 6T will fit on the 80-200 if you use a reducing ring. It will also not vignette.

[james_harrison]

See, I told you I could be missing out. Makes the 80-200 even more useful if the step-down ring works,

[chris_mysen]

I guess I should clarify...it seems as though the 80-200 is too short for most wildlife photography (especially bird/small mammal photography) and not really designed for macro-work... From brian's post, it seems like these would be his ideal uses for it, which is why it would appear to be the most useful to him.

[danny_weber]

The 5T & 6T definitely will vignette on the Nikon 80-200/2.8 unless the lens is set around 200mm. The Canon 500D is 77mm and works well on my latest-version lens at f/11 or smaller, but I have heard that it might not work well with all samples of the lens.

 

<p>

 

I use this combo when I need the fast zoom and don't want to carry a macro lens, but if I expect to have serious macro opportunities, I'd much rather take the 200/4 or 70-180. For macro with extra working distance, I have used a 300 with a PN-11, but lately I've decided this is too much work compared to using one of the macro lenses.

[dan_smith]

If you plan on doing a lot of close work why not buy a used MicroNikkor 200mm f/4 lens? The 52mm close up 3T or whichever will work well on it as will extension tubes and teleconverters. It has a tripod mount on the lens which makes for very easy horizontal/vertical composition changes and it is relatively lightweight and easy to live with. The used prices aren't too high either and the lens is very sharp. Then save up for a 400 or 600 for the tele range.

[brian_m._fieldwick]

Thank you all for the replies.

Back in the 70's I did a lot of wildlife photography but little macro.

During thet time I never used anything less than a 300mm prime lens as

I felt anything smaller was too small. Now I am doing both macro and

wildlife photography and interested in another lens. I was going for the 300mm f4 but after reading John Shaws book I had second thoughts.

For those that do not have it I will quote a small section:

 

<p>

 

with a 2 element diopter in your pocket,taking up no more space than a filter ,you have a complete closeup system along with you.............

When I am on a long big game photo trip , my entire closeup outfit is a zoom with a 2 element diopter.I've published many double page spreads that were photo'd this way....................................

If you add the 5T +1.5 diopter to the Nikon 80-200 f4 lens you'll get some astonishing results,.............................................

 

<p>

 

80-200 with 5T set at closest focus dist.

 

<p>

 

working dist. 15"

mag. at 80mm 1/4x

at 200mm 3/5x

subject area at 80mm 4 1/8x 6 1/4"

at 200mm 1 5/8x 2 1/2"

 

<p>

 

Seeing these figures and his praise of Nikon's 2 element diopters I thought I would see what other people thought. I realize the zoom is a little too short for smaller wildlife but it could be an interestng lens with the added benefit of macro and being able to make flowers ect pop out in the pic.

Here in Canada the price of Nikon lenses are high and the Can. $ is only worth about .69 compared to one US $, therefore I have to be careful in deciding which lens to purchase. The price of the Nikon 200 f4 and the new macro zoom is around $2000.00 each. The 300 f4 is about $1200.00 while the 80-200 zoom is $1500.00. Again thanks to all :]

[bobatkins]

Since you have the 105 Macro, I'd think macro work with other lenses

would be a lower priority. If you intend to work with wildlife the

choice is clear - a 300/4. If you work mostly with scenics and

landscapes, an 80-200/2.8 might be a better choice.