200mm f4 micro afd for 105 vr

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>... take one shot at f2.8 then another at f11 to f16. Then in photoshop you combine the two making a selective mask to have the soft background with the detailed insect. This also allows for some rather creative an artistic opportunities (butterfly in a sea of soft flowers). Thanks for all the opinions I have made up my mind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hear you. Sounds like a lot of work though - LOL! By the way, the two samples I posted are natural - did not hold up the twig, etc. Instead I moved around to render the best background possible with a desired composition. The praying mantis was hanging itself out to dry after the rain. It did not move a whole lot but enough to render unsharpness in many shots. I picked the sharpest, of course. Not much Photoshop other than cropping and a bit of "Level".<br /> <br />In your scenario, you are counting on the butterfly not moving. Yes, you will have a better chance early in the morning, when it is lethargic - and assuming that the butterfly would not move at all. Hwvr, in my experience, that window is short-lived. It may move a bit here and there between your shots, especially when you get too close, or there may be a wind factor. I think your chance of success is greater if you bracket the aperture and fire 3 consecutive shots quickly. Would love to see your results.<br /> <br />I will be disappointed if you sell your 200mm. ;) The 200mm will allow more breathing space between you and the butterfly and, in some situation, allows better light to come in between because of the extra space. This lens is the most suitable for photographing insects.</p>

[nathan_crawford1]

<p>Ah but the effort is so worth the reward mary! Check it out:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fardels2009/<br>

Sorry for assuming on your shot. Great btw! <br>

FYI, this is not my first rodeo:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chupacabra31/7815282104/</p>

[nick_baker]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3893465">Nathan Crawford</a>, Sep 03, 2013; 01:57 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Ah but the effort is so worth the reward mary! Check it out:<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/fardels2009/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/fardels2009/</a><br /> Sorry for assuming on your shot. Great btw! <br /> FYI, this is not my first rodeo:<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chupacabra31/7815282104/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/chupacabra31/7815282104/</a></p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>nice stuff. <br>

In your situation, I think I might first try a cheaper ~100mm lens, perhaps an older used model, or even something shorter, before selling the 200mm.</p>

 

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>Ah but the effort is so worth the reward mary! Check it out:<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/fardels2009/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/fardels2009/</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some very nice images. Hwvr, many look fake and gimmicky to me - guess I am just too much of an "old timer". ;)</p>

[nathan_crawford1]

Mary,

 

Im telling! ;) Just kidding of course!

 

Its definitely more artsy then natural that is for sure! I like to do both types of imagery!

[daniel_sandlin1]

<p>I rather like my old 70-210 f4 for bugs. A great lens at low cost and sharp</p><div></div>

[daniel_sandlin1]

<p>I definetly want to give that trick of your a try of shooting at large and small apertures to get blurred background but the whole image sharp. I've got a copy of Paintshop Pro coming so will finally be able to work with my RAW files.</p>

[arnabdas]

<p>Those two are very different lenses with different personalities, and neither can substitute 100% for the other.<br>

The 200/4 AFD can reward with excellent results, but it's application is restricted to closeups/macro and that too off a tripod. It is impractical to handhold for it's primary intended use. For general photography there are better options at this FL.<br>

The 105/2.8 is lighter (though not by much) and possible to handhold. Good for handheld aquarium photography with overhead flash though it can feel heavy after some time.<br>

Background blur is a combined effect of AoV and aperture, and comparative results between the two lenses may be a tossup.</p>

<p> </p>