200mm Micro-Nikkor vs. 100mm Makro-Planar

[john_wall1]

I've been using a Nikon F3HP w/ 200mm Micro-Nikkor for a long time,

and I like it a lot. I like the tripod mounting collar, the ability

to go to f/32, the field of view of a 200mm, the relatively small

size of the lens. But then I bought a Contax G1 w/ Zeiss 35mm f/2 to

take backpacking, and I fell in love with the lens. You make a 16x20

and people are amazed that you were shooting in 35mm format.

 

So now I'm getting greedy. I want an SLR system with Zeiss lenses for

macro photography (field work) and have been looking at a Contax RX

with 100mm Makro-Planar f/2.8 and a Mutar I 2x teleconverter. F/22 is

the smallest aperture on the 100mm, which doesn't seem like a big

deal, but more importantly there's no tripod mounting collar (and

it's said to be a heavy lens), and I'm wondering if it would be a big

deal to have the 2x on the 100mm sticking out on my little Bogen 3001.

 

Also, if you have thoughts on the lens issue, you might be able to

help me with another question. I can set my lens at f/32 and shoot

the F3 on Auto and still get correct 2-1/2 minute exposures (shooting

fungi in deep woods). Can the Contax RX do that?

[craig_bridge]

Your using one of the top macro setups ever made and your asking us will you be happy with something less that involves a TC and no tripod collar and long exposures?

[stemked]

I'm a Pentax user who shoots a lot of macro. After I discovered the 200 macro my macro world changed immensely. The only advantage I can see of a 100 macro over a 200 is weight (which isn't small, of course). You could add a 2X TC, but then those Zeiss optics you are so proud of would be degraded some. While I'm NOT a Nikon user, I have played with the lens and while I wouldn't trade it for my Pentax lens, its a nice piece of glass. Given a choice I stick with the 200 personally.

[david_tolcher]

John, not a direct answer to your question but... I used to own an F3HP and 105 F4 micro and was always really pleased with the quality for macro work - I didnt think it could be beaten. I also had a Leica M4P and 50mm summicron which produced exquisite results with an indefinable richness and smoothness that I couldnt get out of Nikon lenses. I used K25 in both. This nagged away for a number of years and I eventually traded up my nikon gear for contax and got an rts3 - I initially used a zeiss 85mm F1.4 with tubes for all my macro work but was lucky enough to be able to get a 100mm macro planar in 2000. Zeiss lens do produce a different feel to nikkor lenses especially in the bokeh - I wont say better because that is somewhat subjective. However, the macro planar produces stunning quality results that surpass anything I have taken with any other lens - ever. I have been planning an exhibition so have been getting 12X16 cibachrome prints made of my best work (butterfly, dragonfly and orchid) from the last 20 years and the difference is really noticable at this enlargement. The macro planar results are sharper, more contrasty and have better colour richness than images with the micro nikkor.

 

I dont use converters so cant comment on the quality with converters, other than the 100 macro planar is a beast of a lens - I wouldnt necessarily want it on a converter too, esp with an RX.

 

The RTS 3 certainly does do what you require - it is an alternative to the RX, bigger but does have 100% viewfinder, mirror lockup and an eyepiece cover. I think that it is the comparable model to the F3/MD4. It balances nicely with the macro planar. A good s/h one is only marginally dearer than an RX.

[rick_falck]

You want the Contax macro lens because you liked the results of the Contax 35mm f2 lens? What Nikon lens are you comparing the Contax one too? Nikon's 35mm f1.4 has been compared to Leica favorably. Perhaps you should look into why your Nikon shots with whatever lens you are using for 35mm are not as good as the Contax 35mm prime before going to Contax for macro too.

[greg_mason]

if you like contax you should also try out leica. both companies produce excellent lenses with similiar quality. both also are expensive. leica's line of lenses is a little larger, and that may sway the decision. now that contax is into auto focus, some question their commitment to manual focus lenses.

[Brian]

Macro photography takes you to a part of the universe of optics where respect for illustrious brands is relatively lacking. The two most important factors in image quality are: 1) camera stability; 2) depth of field control. I'm not familiar with the special magic of Zeiss lenses but I have to question whether they can deliver improvements over the Nikkor in this situation (particularly in regard of the difference in tripod mounting point).

[ShunCheung]

This is not a direct answer to the question, but I happen to use both Nikon and Contax. My Contax is pretty new and it is the 645, and it is not exactly fair to compare 35mm and medium-format lenses, but at least I have a hard time telling any big difference between Nikkor and the Contax Zeiss lenses under a 10x loupe.

 

As it has already been pointed out, if you want quality macro shots, a lot of people prefer a 200mm macro because of the longer working distance from your subject and having a tripod collar is a major plus. Not sure which version of the Nikkor 200mm macro you already have, but the new AF-D version has ED glass and can go to 1:1 without any attachments (extension tube or diopter).

 

Moreover, the 105mm/f4 Nikkor macro is a relatively old design although it was (and still is) an excellent lens back in the 1970's. The current version is the 105mm/f2.8 AF-D macro. That can also go to 1:1 without any attachments. I have the slighly earlier non-D version from 1990. Optically the non-D and D are the same, but even that is a 12-year-old design. If we want to compare, I don't think it is fair to use a very old Nikkon macro.

 

In any case, I am with Craig that a 200mm macro with tripod collar is far more important than any minute optical difference you may observe.

[bruce]

John,

You have received a lot of good advice from Craig and Shun to

this point, and I would like to support their recommendation. I

moved from Contax to Nikon in the mid 90's. I had a broad

selection of bodies and lenses... traded it all towards Nikon, and

rebuilt my system. There is no question that the Macro-Planar is

an outstanding lens for the Y/C, N, & 645 system, but it does not

touch the convenience and flexibility of the new EDAF200

Micro-Nikkor. If you are using the older 200, it to is a good lens,

but the newer design is sharper and allows for 1:1

magnification. It's build is a durable as any Zeiss optic I have

owned in the past. Finally, the value and flexibility of a lens based

tripod mount can not be understated in Macro photography!!! You

will tend to shoot less macro verticles if you can not easily flip

your camera, and this will restrict your vision.

 

regards,

bruce

http://www.owlseyenaturephotos.com

[bob_royse]

I'll offer another view on the Makro-Planar vs. 200/180 lenses.

 

I used to use Contax (and certainly still would if I was rich and could own everything I wanted). The RTS3 to me is the ideal camera body for macro nature work. It's so incredibly ergonomic. All you have to do is get evrything in place and flip the levers (AE lock, mirror lock, etc.) and shoot. Now that I use Canon, because bird photography is so important to me, I rarely even use my absolutely fantastic 180L macro lens with its fancy IF and tripod collar. Why? Because the camera is such an annoyance. I have to press tiny buttons and remember to repress them when I'm finished. Gloves on cold days for macro work? Forget about it with Canon. I've used Nikon too at one time or another, and I like Nikon less than Canon. I'd very happily own another RTS3 and a 100 Makro Planar if I could afford to.

 

As far as using the Mutars with the 100 Makro Planar, it is a balance problem, for sure. You absolutely need to use the Contax cable release and have everything in place before you press the shutter open. For higher magnification work, both mutar 1 and 2 can be used with the 100 Makro-Planar. The Mutar 1 will show light falloff at wide apertures unless a Contax extension tube is placed between the camera and Mutar. The Mutar 2 will need a tube between the lens and mutar to mate properly. Both combinations will give outstanding optical results, though, when properly used. For lower magnification work, the 100-300 Vario-Sonnar and 180 Sonnar both work very well with extension tubes. I've never used the 80-200, but presume it would work well too.

 

I definitely miss my Contax stuff. If you like Contax cameras and lenses, go with Contax if you can.