Nikon macro beyond 105mm?

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Anyone wondering what Nikon is planning on doing with macro beyond 105mm?</p>

<p>The 200mm is prehistoric by now and it doesn't make it's own extension tubes for anything else.</p>

<p>The new 300mm f4 PF VR macro with tubes has got to be a killer bug chaser???</p>

<p>There are a few of-marque longer macros, especially around 180mm...but nothing Nikon based.</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>As far as I know 300mm F4 PF VR is not compatible with extension tubes, which is a shame considering how well the previous AFS lens performed (on DX only)</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I wonder if they have left the 200 Micro alone because it would be so hard to make a replacement that was as good.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I haven't used my 200mm/f4 AF-D macro much lately, but when I checked it on the 24MP D3X a few years ago, it was still excellent. It comes with a nice tripod collar, and I mainly use it on a tripod. I am not sure AF-S and VR are all that necessary for this lens. Its main weakness is the rather fragile AF/MF ring switch. Like quite a few of them, mine broke and it cost me $200 to fix.</p>

<p>It will indeed be tough for Nikon to produce an even better new version to convince a lot of people to upgrade. And if a new version comes with AF-S VR and even better optics, it'll likely be close to $2000.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I got the 200mm AF-D macro to use on my D700 - worked great, then I got a D800 and I got even better images, I was just using it hand held on my new D810 today and managed to get this shot, so Nikon will have to make a magic lens to beat what the 200mm AF-D Macro can do.</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p>A great choice at the moment is the Sigma 150mm OS HSM.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I'll second the Sigma 150 - the 180 is a lot more

expensive, and the 150 is short enough to be a less

LoCA-prone substitute for the 135 DC (though the new

Samyang is tempting me).

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as I know 300mm F4 PF VR is not compatible with extension tubes, which is a shame considering how well the previous AFS lens performed </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Considering how most 'smart' tubes are just pass-through contacts, I wonder how the lens will 'know' it's there?</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 180mm f3.5, which is plenty sharp but is a really ponderous beast when it comes to AF. Chasing flying bugs, dragonflies and what-not with AF/MF over-ride control works well with the combo Nick B mentioned above.</p>

<p>I do indeed like the look of the 150mm OS Sigma on DX, and wonder if a trade-in is called for.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If I'd want/need a longer macro, I'd save up for the Nikon. Who cares when it was introduced, "prehistoric", if the results are there; it's not like fast AF and VR are important requisities for macro work; much more prehistoric MF lenses still do an awesome job just fine as well. I don't see why Nikon would need to release a new lens just for the sake of releasing a new lens? They've got bigger gaps, and certainly gaps that are financially more interesting.<br>

But I guess that if they would release a AF-S 200mm f/3.5 VR Micro-Nikkor with even better performance tomorrow, there would be another lens to complain about again - it seems that complaining about what Nikon does is more important than using and enjoying the tools they've brought us.<br>

Sounds like a good queue to go off with the FM2, F3 and a few MF primes. </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p> it's not like fast AF and VR are important requisities for macro work</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Which I guess means they're not important for <em><strong>your</strong></em> macro work? It would seem everyone but Canon & Nikon thinks many, many buyers want VR/OS, fast AF and good focus limiters on a macro of 150/180mm....and are prepared to pay handsomely.</p>

<p>I guess the 'Why replace it?' argument would have applied to the 105mm 2.8 D macro would it not? They did and sadly, it didn't get any better...:-)</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Duplicate post</p>

[nick_baker]

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as I know 300mm F4 PF VR is not compatible with extension tubes, which is a shame considering how well the previous AFS lens performed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Considering how most 'smart' tubes are just pass-through contacts, I wonder how the lens will 'know' it's there?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't electronic aperture a problem?</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Shouldn't be. The signal is just passed through on the usual pins. </p>

<p>I suppose the aperture 'mover' <em><strong>may</strong></em> need to be removed from the extension tube incase it fouls the back of the lens mount, although I suppose that would apply to any DSLR body that has an aperture 'pusher, ie all! Maybe there's a different amount of 'spring-loadedness' with the body? Rather like the screwdriver drive from high-end camera bodies when used with an AFS lens.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I was using a Sigma 105mm f2.8, not AFS or VR. I then bought a Nikon 105mm VR AFS. My "hit" rate went up considerably for butterflies. I can see where if you're doing flowers etc. the newer lenses wouldn't have all that much advantage, but for something like fast moving bugs it certainly does make a difference.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Kent, that's exactly the issue I'm asking about!</p>

<p>Something about 180 - 220mm AFS, VRII and an interface allowing selectable focus limiters, like min > 1,5m or 1 > 3m etc. The hardware and data sets are already in place....and with that degree of focus range, ie very small, AF could be very quick indeed. With a suitable cluster of cross type sensors now available for 2/3 rds of the focussing screen, it should be fairly straightforward. With a f2.8 lens and a focus distance of about 2m, the AF sensors will never be distracted by a very soft background, however contrasty it really is.</p>

<p>I never understood the 'direction' of the focus limiter on the 105mm VR <strong>macro.</strong> Full, fair enough, but the 0.5 > infinity selector seems to be the opposite of a macro limiter, more an anti-macro limiter! A min focus > 1.5m would be a macro limiter.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>In the past Nikon seemed to be very interrested in Makro- / Micro- ( whats in a name ? ) work, and investigated in research for Bellows / Tubes/ Lenses adaptor rings etc. etc. <br>

Nowadays Nikon stops at (obligatory - like) supplying some Makro - lenses ( of a limited range of focal lengths, and at a max. magnification of 1:1 . .<br>

It is just a different strategy : Nikon likes to concentrate on the mass markets more, and does not like to invest in "Niche Markets" that much anymore so i do not so i do not think Nikon will invest in the research & production of a new 200mm Makro / Micro lens and / or extension tubes which carry all neccesary mechanical en electronic connectors. unless suddenly a Hugher Demand from the WWM ( World Wide Market) is initiated..... </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I recall test-driving a Nikon 200/4 at the local dealer a few years back - the AF speed did not impress me at all. In fact, already used to the slow focusing on the 70-180, I found the 200 to be even slower.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it's not like fast AF and VR are important requisites for macro work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>VR probably isn't - its efficiency decreases as on focuses closer and closer anyway. Fast AF is something at least I desire when trying to get close-ups of insects - anything that moves actually. Though one could argue that it's a futile effort to get a good macro of anything that's actually moving while an image is created.</p>

<p>The 70-180 is excellent for tripod work and when neither fast AF nor a large working distance is required (at the 180mm setting and at MFD, the working distance is about that of a 105mm lens). I eventually sold it because that's not the way I often go about creating close-up imagery. I very much prefer the Sigma 150/2.8 nowadays - not only because it doubles as a very nice, compact mid-range tele. Using it on a tripod can be frustrating though - since focal length and hence framing change with focusing distance. A macro rail appears to be a necessity when using that lens on a tripod. Not an issue when hand-holding the lens though.</p>

<p>Andrew already mentioned the Sigma 180/2.8 which from all I've read is excellent (though may not have that fast of an AF either). It's expensive ($1700 or thereabouts) - but at least you get about 1 gram of weight per dollar spent (which is to say the lens is quite heavy). You're not gaining that much in working distance over the 150 though - only about 1/2"! http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2013/macro-photography-working-distances-by-robert-otoole/ The Nikon 200 lets you stay at least 2" further away at 1:1 magnification.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I never understood the 'direction' of the focus limiter on the 105mm VR <strong>macro.</strong> Full, fair enough, but the 0.5 > infinity selector seems to be the opposite of a macro limiter, more an anti-macro limiter! A min focus > 1.5m would be a macro limiter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Sigma 150 has a three position switch "Full", "0.58m - infinity", and "0.38-0.58m" (it's the same on the OS and non-OS version, and also on the 180). Certainly better than on the Nikon 105 VR - but the "0.38-0.58m" can be a bit limiting and I often wish for it to be "0.38-0.8m" or "0.38-1m". Better yet, add a fourth setting in addition to "0.38-0.58m": "0.38-1m".</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the 200mm macro is a very small market lens, thus it hasn't been updated. While a long macro has the advantage of simplifying backgrounds due to the narrow angle of view, it is more clumsy to use if you want to obtain images from different directions (e.g. from overhead, not just low near ground level, at the level of the plant or insect); a short tele is easier to use for that. I tend to use the 85mm PC-E for most close-ups as it gives the option of controlling the plane of sharpness and that to me is essential. I use the 200mm micro when I need to photograph a subject smaller than can be captured with the 1:2 maximum magnification of the 85mm PC-E, and especially when photographing a bit more distant subjects e.g. ice formations in a creek it can be useful. For even more reach a 300/4 AF-S D can be used with or without extension tubes. I find that operation of the rig gets progressively more clumsy as the focal length goes up, but these approaches have their own applications. I certainly appreciate Nikon finally putting in the EFCS feature in the D810 so that shutter induced shake can be avoided.</p>

<p>I believe the need for a 200mm micro is further reduced by the prevalence of 24MP high pixel density DX cameras in the market and the ease with which such cameras can be used for close-ups of small objects, without the use of extension tubes or bellows. The need for high magnification setups is somewhat reduced in practical applications of close-up photography because of the improvement in the recording medium. However, equally it could be said that due to focus stacking technology, macro at high magnifications is now much more realistic than it was before digital and focus stacking. Somehow Nikon hasn't gotten into this in recent years (or decades). Not that it matters much, there are other manufacturers of bellows (I use a Novoflex tilt/shift bellows) and extension tubes (though personally I only have the Nikon ones) and lenses from microscopes etc. I think there is a sizable enthusiastic macro community online who buy exotic stuff from the auction site and hack their own setups to do macro. ;-)</p>

<p>Personally my go-to kit for close-ups is the 85 PC-E and 200mm f/4D AF Micro. I require no changes to these, though it would be nice if the latter had AF-S and better out of focus rendering (as exhibited in the 60 AF-S Micro and 105 AF-S Micro). I do not want the image quality loss that a VR design would bring into the table; from my point of view there is no macro without a tripod and the lens should be optimized for that.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Fast AF is something at least I desire when trying to get close-ups of insects - anything that moves actually. Though one could argue that it's a futile effort to get a good macro of anything that's actually moving while an image is created.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. If I need to capture a fast moving insect, I use something like a 80-400mm AF-S VR for the much longer working distance from the subject to the front of the lens. In macro range, even a 200mm macro provides too little working distance and you risk disturbing your moving subject. For example, I captured the hummingbird moth (two of them) that I posted to the Nature Forum with the 80-400 on a DX body (D7100): http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dEuS-556324684.jpg</p>

<p>Additionally, in such occasions I tend to use a fast shutter speed to stop motion, such that VR is of limited benefit. If anything acquiring VR may slow things down just a bit. I prefer to simply switch it off.</p>

<p>Obviously you can use a lens for whatever way you want, including hammering nails :-). However, the fact that these long macro lenses have a tripod collar suggests that a lot of people use them on tripods for slow, precise macro work. Macros tend to have a long focus throw, e.g. usually you need to make maybe a full revolution on the focusing ring from infinity to 1:1. It is difficult to achieve fast and precise AF, regardless of whether it is screwdriver AF or AF-S.</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>For the new 80-400mm AFS, the info I can find is that min focus is 1.5m. Is that at the 400mm end too?</p>

<p>EDIT. From the Nikon website it seems the max mag is 1/5x?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mike, concerning the 80-400mm AF-S VR, the minimum focusing distance does not change from the 80mm end to the 400mm end. I don't have that lens with me right now, but yesterday I was shooting with another person with that lens and we were checking the minimum focusing distance. It was indeed around 5 feet, so 1.5 meters is about right. That is a very close distance for some moving insect in general.</p>

<p>A lot of the beautiful butterfly images I have seen are captured very early in the morning when they cannot fly before the sun warms them up. Usually they are standing on some branches. As long as it is not windy so that the branches don't vibrate, you have some semi still insects and you can get quite close and use a macro lens on a tripod to tune your focus manually as you have plenty of time to do so.</p>

<p>Photographing flying butterflies is a very different game. At least I probably wouldn't use a macro lens, but again, many people have a lot of creative ways to photograph way beyond my knowledge.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Now, unless my maths is off, a 10mm bug at x1/5 will occupy just 2mm linear of my sensor real estate?</p>

<p>Is that <strong><em>really</em> </strong>how the sums work out?</p>

<p>Guess I better find bigger critters...:-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>a 10mm bug</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, exactly what kind of insects do you have in mind? I thought we were talking about flying insects such as butterflies. Usually I photograph them with their wings wide open, and we should be talking about a subject that 40mm, 50mm in size.</p>

<p>If you have a 10mm bug flying around and you need to get closer than 1.5 meters, I wish you luck following its flight with your viewfinder since the magnification is going to be huge, and you'll have a hard time with the depth of field to get enough of your subject in focus.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Ah, <em><strong>now</strong></em> you finally understand the issue!</p>

<p>OK, back to where we started...not your snoozy frozen static bugs....:-)</p>

<p>Pop your 300mm 4 AF<strong>D</strong> with about 20mm of extension tubes on your d7200 and go chase some flying bugs.</p>

<p>.....maybe then you'd wish for some better focus limiters and AF<strong>S </strong>and maybe VR...</p>

<p>or maybe, just maybe a 1:1 300mm f4 macro with self selectable focus limiters?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mike, you are not getting my point.</p>

<p>Just hypothetically that you are chasing some small, 10mm-wide bug flying around, and you have a 300mm lens that has perfect AF instantaneously to 1:1, just assume somehow that is technically doable. Your problem is going to be locating your subject in your viewfinder and the complete lack of depth of field, both due to high magnification.</p>

<p>When the subject is as small as 10mm, most macro work is done with a static subject. In these days people use focus stacking to increase depth of field, which also requires a subject that doesn't move around, careful manual focusing, and tripod, not AF-S and VR.</p>