Nikon macro photography: 105 f/2.8 AF vs. 200 f/4 AF

[jhbeckman]

I have the 105 f/2.8 AF micro-nikkor. It's okay. I'm thinking about buying a 200 f/4, either to replace or in addition. Any folks worked with both and have any impressions? Most of my work is of flowers in studio.

 

<p>

 

I appreciate any counsel.

[albert_smith]

John,

 

<p>

 

The 105mm focal length is so usful for many types of photography, if

you are not restricted by cost... I'd keep both.

 

<p>

 

As you know the backgroud can be altered by changing the focal length

also, so having both lenses would give you options for compositions

using the same magnification of the subject, (flower).

 

<p>

 

Due to the greater working distance, the 200mm would be my first

choice with small animals, insects and the like, but flowers don't

get scared and run away, so if it is an "either / or" type choice,

I'd go with the 105mm.

[jim_bridges1]

I use the AF 105/2.8 with a TC-201 for more working distance at times

and get fine results. Could be a option you may consider instead of

the 200/4, and the TC-201 is a little cheaper too. I use this

combination mostly for dragonflies, spider's and butterflies.

[jon_mernyk]

Hi, I have the 200, 105 and an old 55 f3.5 and for what you are doing

you might consider the 55 and save some money. When you can get in

close that 55 gives almost a 3D effect, like you are in the flower.

And the sharpness is amazing. Don't get me wrong, I love the 200 and

mostly use it outdoors, it is amazingly sharp also. But I have

hundreds of shots with both and if I were in your place now I would

buy the 55 and use a little of the saved money for flash/lighting

accessories that will really make your photos shine.