Nikon 200mm f/4 Micro

[anirban_halder]

<p>Have anyone used Nikon 200mm f/4 micro for general wildlife like birds or small animals?</p>

<ul>

<li>Is this lens convenient to use for such purposes?</li>

<li>Any tips on how to get best out of this lens for such occasions?</li>

</ul>

<p>Thanks ~Anirban</p>

 

[sandysocks]

<p>I believe there are multiple versions of this lens and even then, some conflicting reports. I have a version from the late 1980's. It seems to do very well on a D300 at f11 and f16. It is most useful as a close-up and landscape lens. It is not long enough for lots of wildlife such as birds. Get close and use a tripod.</p>

[anirban_halder]

<p>Thanks RL. I referred to the latest version "<strong>AF</strong> Nikon 200mm ED IF f/4 micro"</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I generally find 200mm too short for birds - even when mounted on a DX camera. Same goes for small animals - usually one just can't get close enough. For wildlife, I consider 300mm (on DX) the absolute minimum, and even then a 1.4x is mounted behind it most of the time. Small birds - 500mm and longer.</p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>I've never used it for anything other than macro work. I that capacity I find it to be the finest macro lens ever made for Nikon SLR/DSLR's. As a general purpose lens it that range I would not recommend this lens. The Sigma 150 is very close in performance (please don't quote photozone testing...I'm using both of these in the field currently, and my observations are based upon thousands of images). It is less expensive and AF's much faster (as does the 180...a shade less sharp at wider f's). They are better choices for general use. The 200 is a highly specialized piece of equipment and expensive. For macro exclusively it would be my recommendation, but not for GP. Even better for what you seem to be trying shoot would be the 300 f4 AFS, which is great optically even with tc's, has fast AF, and gets exceptional closeup performance. I carry these three with me almost always and the 300 gets used a lot. You can photograph a bird and turn around and capture a flower without changing lenses. As I've stated in the past...that is a very powerful tool.</p>

[anirban_halder]

<p>Joel, thanks a bunch. Very useful comments. Dieter, thanks to you too. So from both your comments it looks like AF 200mm micro is an extraordinary macro lens. 300mm f/4 with TC or 500mm are more suited for Wildlife. Thanks again for your inputs.<br>

Another question, considering the price of Nikon AF 200mm f/4 micro, is that lens truly that exceptional?</p>

[roland_vink]

<p>The Nikon AF 200/4 micro will photograph birds and small animals - if you can get close enough:<br>

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=248587</p>

<p> </p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>In my estimation it its. I have used the Sigma's (150 and 180), the Tamron 180 (and most of the other F-mount macros...but we're not discussing those focal lengths) for many years. I favor the 200 for it's image quality from wide to closed, it's bokeh, build and handling. Now I will say that if I had to do the same things with the Sigma 150, it is the one lens that I feel comes closest. Still...there is a clarity to images that I capture with the Nikkor that is just different. Perhaps part of it is that using that lens just feels like an extension of my body because I am so comfortable with it. I also shoot from a tripod (just about always), and this lens has a quality of inertia that renders it vibration free at almost any orientation (I have an RRS rail plate on it and I use it on a G1325/M20 combo and a Vel630/M10 combo). To be clear, "best" macro lenses are tough to advocate for because they are all so very good. I do have a few favorites though...this is number one for me.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I can't comment on the 200 Micro directly since I don't own it. I do have the 300/4 AF-S and use it with a 1.4x and 1.7x, I also have the 150 Sigma; for both can only second what Joel already said. I was tempted by the 200 but at twice the price of the Sigma I had to pass. I use the Sigma not only for macro, and the AF speed of the 200 was simply too slow for those applications (and the focal length also a tad too long).</p>

[akira]

<p>I haven't used 200/4 micro, but based on my years of experience of using Micro 55/2.8 as general purpose lens, I would say the focus throw of Micro/Macro lenses between 5m and infinity is too short to focus comforably, which is less of a problem for lenses with shorter focal lengths like 55mm, but the 200mm Micro may make focusing the (moving) object out of closeup range more tricky.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I use the 200/4 AF (etc - the latest version) and I think it's excellent for hummingbirds, since they come to my fuschia and I can get close enough. I would not rely on its autofocus as it's quite slow. For general bird and wildlife, it's not even close to being long enough (and I use it on a D90, so it's effectively a 300mm).</p>

[riller]

<p>It is not long enough for lots of wildlife .</p>

[bob_cunningam]

<p>The 200 F4 Micro is a fantastic lens. I also use it with the Sigma 1.4 with good results. Small animals are not a problem, but birds in flight can be. Its one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes.</p>

[anirban_halder]

<p>Bob- Nikon recommends no teleconverter with AF 200mm F4 micro. Does sigma 1.4 work well with this lens?</p>

[walterh]

<p>But the f4 lens used with a 1.4 converter will be f5.6 - really slow for fast moving animals. AF will be marginally usable if at all.</p>

[bob_cunningam]

<p>I have used the Sigma 1.4x with the 200 without any issues. The loss of a stop and slower shutter speeds can be a problem with fast movements, but for more stationary objects it works great.</p>

[anirban_halder]

<p>Well, here's first hand result. What I felt, it very difficult to reach close enough without scaring the object. This lens is super sharp. So even if you can not reach close enough to fill the frame, you can crop the pictures and still maintain very high quality.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anirbanh/sets/72157622584976801/</p>