new long macro lens

[rob_de_jong]

<p>Hello,<br>

I need a new long macro lens. I am doubting between the Nikkor 200 mm and the Sigma 180 mm f2,8. I do a lot of backlit shots, so the bokeh is important. I read that the sigma has rounded blades. Will those give me rounded reflections of, for example, waterdrops in the background, also at f11 or f16?</p>

<p>Any other suggestion for a long macro lens with rounded blades?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Rob</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Not sure whether the aperture blades are in fact round, but according to Photozone, its bokeh characteristics should be very good: the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/285-tamron-af-180mm-f35-sp-di-ld-if-macro-nikon-review--test-report">Tamron 180mm f/3.5 Macro</a>.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, the best lenses I have with regards to bokeh (Nikkor 105 f/2.5, Tokina 100mm f/2.8) neither have rounded blades. There is more to it than just that, so I would really just watch example photos (plenty photosites where you can filter by lens) and draw your own conclusions based on what you see. Bokeh is highly subjective anyway.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I don't own one, but I've always been under the impression (from reviews) that if the 200 f/4 has a weakness, it's with bokeh. You might look to look at photozone's sample <a href="http://images.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_200_4/samples/DSC_6456-01.jpg">here</a> and form your own opinion. There's a small amount of axial chromatic aberration, and quite a bit of outlining - something that historically used to be a feature of lenses that were exceptionally sharp, although modern optical design seems to have been able to counter that a bit.<br />

<br />

I'd have thought the mere fact of the increased aperture might tempt you with the Sigma, if you're after background effects. I've not used the 180mm, but I do own the (much cheaper) 150mm and find that it behaves exceptionally well - I bought it partly as a replacement for a 135 f/2 (whose LoCA I don't like) that's smaller than my 200 f/2, and partly as a macro with appreciably more reach than the 90mm Tamron I used before. I understand that the 180 might be slightly less sharp, but there's not much in it.<br />

<br />

For other options, there's the magical 70-180mm micro Nikkor, though it's not so much 180mm at the macro end and it may be slower than you want, I can't speak for its bokeh. Photozone are very complimentary about the 180mm f/4 Voigtlander, if you can find one and don't mind manual focus (and the sample images are pretty impressive, though the foreground bokeh may be very slightly weaker than the background). Good luck.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I have the Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4.</p>

<p>This link points to a butterfly picture I took with it on my 500px.com website<br /> http://500px.com/photo/12566279/untitled-by-lorne-sunley?from=set&set_id=330171<br /> and this is a link to a set of insect pictures taken with the same lens. The butterflies and the bees are taken with the Micro-Nikkor lens, some of the dragon flies are taken with a 300mm telephoto.<br /> http://500px.com/lsunley/sets/insects<br>

The photos are are pretty well "out of the camera" some are cropped a bit.</p>

<p> </p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Although AF is not that interesting for Macro work, it might still be of interest for other uses of the lens , hence my question : On what camera do you want to use this lens ? ( The Nikon 200mm is an AF-D lens, so it has no builtin motor).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>... magical 70-180mm micro Nikkor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't pick that one if maximizing working distance is your goal - at the 180mm setting and MFD you are about as far away as with a 105mm lens. AF is slow (and noisy); I found the bokeh to be pleasant. I sold mine a year ago in favor of the Sigma 150/2.8 that suits my shooting style better (it also works quite well with Sigma's 1.4x extender). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if the 200 f/4 has a weakness, it's with bokeh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't speak to the bokeh but what turned me away from that lens (in addition to the price) is the slow AF (it's noisy too). </p>

<p>Never even handled the Sigma 180mm - it certainly has OS and HSM going for it compared to the quite dated Nikkor (and f/2.8 vs f/4 which should help with focusing). The 3 1/2 pound weight I would count against it though.</p>

 

[nick_baker]

<p>I can't help with this specific question but regarding some other points that have come up: I own the CV 180mm f4. Wonderful lens but, in my opinion, not at its best at closest focus, and not a competitor for any dedicated macro. I also own the Nikon 200 AF-D f4, and regarding its AF speed, this will be significantly affected by the body used. In particular, D7100 does not have the same AF motor as D800 and AF is fairly painful on D7100. No-one, in my opinion, should purchase the 200mm micronikkor except for macro and close-up, I don't find it particularly good with distant targets and it would be a slow, bulky, expensive and inferior choice as a general telephoto. Great macro lens though. </p>

[mary_stamper]

<p>I own the 200. I love it. It's stunning on the d800. AF is slow BECAUSE manual focus is outstanding. You can't have it both ways. For good MF, you need a long focus throw, which makes AF slow. If you focus manually, it doesn't get much better. You can hand-hold it if you heed the rules about sufficient shutter speed. <br>

It's actually a rather good medium telephoto if you stop it down.<br>

Color is incredibly realistic, and it's sharp as hell without being ridiculously contrasty, unlike the 105 which I own and hate for it's over contrasty, digital age images.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>An important feature for these longer macro lenses is the tripod collar, which makes it a lot easier to use on a tripod. In particular, it makes it much easier to switch between horizontal and vertical (and other angels) compositions. As far as I know, both the Sigma 180mm and the Nikon 200mm/f4 AF-D macro lenses have a collar.</p>

<p>I have the Nikon 200mm/f4 AF-D myself.</p>