Long(er) Macro Lenses

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Now I have a D700, my 105mm VR macro doesn't have the 'reach' it did on my D300. To fill the frame, the butterflies are bugging-off! (<em><strong>PLEASE</strong></em> ignore the DX > FX issue regarding magnification) I need a longer lens!<br>

In terms on suitable macros, the Nikon 200mm, the Tamron 180mm and the Sigma 150mm come to mind.<br>

Anyone been lucky enough to use two or all three and compare them. I've heard excellent reports of the Tamron, but have personally used none of them..;-(</p>

<p>All views greatfully received.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The Nikon 200mm Micro is excellent. I recently got to use one but had to return it because of an issue with it. I chose to replace it with the 105mm VR which I prefer (not because of IQ which is probably the same). I bought the No experience with the others. My suggestion... use extension tubes or get a high resolution DX body like the D7000.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>One vote for the AF 200mm f4D Micro-Nikkor lens. In a pinch, for butterfly images, the AF 70-300mm f4.5D~ VR Nikkor lens will work, too. The zoom does not let you get closer than 4.5 feet away, but at 300mm -- it'll do for butterfly photos.</p>

<p>[...or continue with your 105mm lens with the D700 in DX mode. It (the camera) may surprise you. For Internet photos, the quality is fine. If you plan on printing 16x20s -- then shoot FX mode.]</p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>You can also buy longer. Why not a 300mm prime with an extension tube? It works for me.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Tried the 200/4 in a store - great for macro if you are used to manual focus; I found the AF to be abysmally slow; certainly a lens that would benefit from an AF-S upgrade (though I shudder at the thought what that would do to the price). I own the Sigma 150/2.8 and I really like it; it gives me the additional working distance I lack with the 70-180 Micro zoom; but it is the one that gives you the least amount of additional reach compared to your 105. Haven't tried the Tamron but heard and read only good things about it. Sigma also makes a 180/3.5 - might be worth considering as well.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Here a sample (DX mode) image taken with the AF 200mm Micro-Nikkor lens.</p>

<p>(Of course, the butterfly has to co-operate as well.....)</p>

<div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>With the proviso that this is only impressions I've gleaned from on-line reviews, not direct experience... the Nikkor 200 f/4 micro seems to be impressively sharp, but since the bokeh at normal ranges seems a bit iffy it's very much a macro-only lens. I have a mild sense of lust towards the Sigma 150mm f/2.8, which doubles as a decent long portrait lens (and is obviously faster); there's an OS version that may or may not help with flutterbys - otherwise, the older version is still available and significantly cheaper. It assumes you were happy with the 105mm on DX, of course - if you need still more length, the 180mm-200mm macros or extension tubes on a longer lens may be the way.<br />

<br />

Otherwise, how about a teleconverter?<br />

<br />

Nikon apparently recently filed a patent for a selection of long-ish macro lenses, but don't hold your breath for them to turn into products...</p>

[elliot1]

<p>My previous post has a punctuation error which I missed. The 2nd sentence should just read "No experience with the others."</p>

<p>Jerry, DX mode simply crops out the area beyond the DX area - it doesn't get you any closer. Extension tubes will without degrading IQ because there is no lens inside them. A TC introduces glass which will likely degrade the IQ of the lens being used a bit.</p>

<p>I also forgot that all the lenses you list including the 105mm are all 1:1, so even Nikon's 200mm micro will not get you any closer - you simply get a bit more working distance. IQ is so good with the 105mm that I don't believe the 200mm Micro will give you any better IQ. I did not have the two lenses at the same time so I did not get a chance to test them.</p>

<p>The only way I know of to get closer without using a lens that gives more magnification than 1:1 is with extension tubes, bellows or a TC. A TC would be my last choice. I don't know if there are any automatic bellows (they would probably be very expensive anyway). Automatic extension tubes 9what will work with a G lens are affordable and will do the job, costing about $80-$200. While most models are ABS plastic, there is a metal tube available for under $100 that will work with a G lens (saw it on eBay).</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>I have only owned the 105VR, used with D300, D700 and D7000 cameras. If your question relates to image quality only, I can't comment on the other lenses mentioned. Other factors, such as AF, usefulness of a focus-limiter, weight, or focal length and its consequences for ISO in the absence of flash may be relevant also (or not, depending on your style of macro photography). In this regard, the 300mm F4 AF-S, although not a 1:1 lens, is very good at closest focus and its AF seems MUCH faster than the 200mm micro. Also, I think you might experiment with the 105mm VR + tc-20 iii notion before dismissing it. In my case, I reluctantly concluded that DX has advantages for macro, much as I loved my D700.</p>

<p>PS link to D7000/300AFS example:<br>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Elliot - I'm assuming Mike's problem is solely with having a limited working distance before his subject flies off. I suspect most butterflies (although not flies in general) are reasonably large compared with an FX frame, so he's not bumping up against the 1:1 scale factor; the issue is not having enough working distance. Extension tubes, bellows and close-up "filters" let you focus closer, which can get you past 1:1, but since he already can't get close enough I don't think they'll help. But I may have misunderstood the problem.<br />

<br />

Only a teleconverter (or a longer lens, or cropping the image) will get you a larger image shooting from the same subject distance.<br />

<br />

Longer macro lenses are expensive. Perhaps hire a TC-14/17/20 and see whether you're happy with the result?</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Spot on Andrew! More working distance is what I'm after. More mm's seems the way....</p>

<p>Nick...I Like it. I must say I'd not thought of the 300mm f4 AF-S, 1:3.6 is not bad for that reach.<br>

I've already got a set of the Kenko (metal) 'metering' extension tubes, which admittedly will prevent infinity shooting, but should fit nicely on the 300mm to get that little bit closer. I will loose a bit of light, but <em>maybe</em> that's not so important...?</p>

<p>I think the Sigma 180mm has moved out of the current line-up. However, the pre order for the 150mm OS Macro is there at £999!</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>I haven't used any of those lenses but would just point out that a D7000 body costs far less than a new Nikon 200mm micro AF lens. (There's also an older manual focus one.) Having both FX and DX bodies available is quite handy.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Sorry, misunderstood. The 200mm Micro definitely has more working distance than the 105mm VR.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>deleted duplicate post.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Here's a quick "test" from the backyard garden. No Photoshop work done save for reducing the size to fit here on PhotoNet.</p>

<p>Please check:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1005968</p>

<p> I've both the old AF 105mm f2.8D Micro-Nikkor and the AF 200mm f4D Micro-Nikkor: for butterfly images, the AF 105mm is not the best for sneaking up on a butterfly.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_cooper]

<p>I have the Sigma 150mm, excellent throughout but unfortunately can't compare it to the others. It does focus to 1/1.</p>

[JakeQ]

<blockquote>I've heard excellent reports of the Tamron, but have personally used none of them..;-(</blockquote>

<p>The Tamron is sharp and very well made but I found its color rendition to be quite different from my Nikkors. Somewhat yellowish.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I own the Nikon 200, it works well for me. I've shot the Tamron 180, and was very impressed.</p>

<p>To echo Andrew, the Nikon 105mm is an excellent match to the Nikon TC-14E II. I have shot the Nikon 200mm and 60mm on a Tokina 1.4x teleconverter, and was impressed by the way these lenses have such great "reserves" of sharpness that they hold up extremely well on teleconverters.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I own the Micro Nikkor AF 200. Great lens. I use it on my D700.</p>

<p>Yes the Auto focus sucks at 1:1 ratios, but then you are better off using the manual focus anyway.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 200mm AF Micro is a nice lens, albeit expensive. It works nicely with both FX and DX cameras but needs to be stopped down to around f/8 for best results. If reach / additional working distance in close-up work is what you want then using it with a DX camera like the D7000 is a good choice. I think the D7000 is a great camera for macro work with its nice implementation of live view (but I do all my macro stuff on tripod; the 200 might not be so easy to use hand-held).</p>

<p>That said, many expert insect photographers actually use short macro lenses (50-105mm) for their work. Some do use long ones. It is not always a new lens that is the key.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>I've already got a set of the Kenko (metal) 'metering' extension tubes, which admittedly will prevent infinity shooting, but should fit nicely on the 300mm to get that little bit closer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 300mm F4 does very well with a TC1.4. too, and without loosing infinity shooting.<br>

This combo has the same minimum focussing distance as the 300mm without Tc, hence it ives you more magnification at its minimum focussing diistance.. so if you've already got both i'd say give it a shot..</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i have no experience with any of the lenses you mention, but i'm most intrigued by the sigma 150 OS. their 150 original version seems so beloved by all that i couldn't imagine they'd make a crappy OS version. the 150 OS will essentially behave on FX like the 105 VR on DX. pricey but versatile, also you get an extra stop over the 200/4.</p>

<p>also, if joseph says the tamron 180 is good, it probably is.</p>

<p> </p>

[indraneel]

<p>I can add to the excellent reports of the Tamron 180. The bokeh at tele end is also nice. My folders are filled with examples. The autofocus is slow but usable (I use it for macro and birds on a D700, AF is nearly unusable with a D200). May need AF finetuning for sharpest results.</p>

<p>Ive never heard of the 200mm, but if I had the double dough I'd probably have plonked it on the extra 20mm and the brand name.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>I found the 300 f/4 AFS with extension tubes to be far more useful than my 70-180 Micro Nikkor for shooting bugs. You can get about 20 inches of working space.</p><div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Robert, What length of tube gives you that working distance?<br>

I vaguely remember a formula relating the original focal length of lens in mm's and the extension tube length in mm's gives you something, but can't remember what!</p>

<p>PS Nice critters!</p>