105d or 80-200 for macro?

[jscoles]

I'm looking to get a lens that will let me take macros, and until

recently, was fixed on the 105d 2.8 nikkor micro. Then, I was reading

<a href="http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/tutorials/macro/index.

html">this article at Really Right Stuff</a>, and thought that maybe

instead of spending $600 on a really specialized lens, I could get a

nice multipurpose 80-200 f/2.8 for a bit more, and use extension tubes

or closeup lenses for macros.

 

Right now, I have a nikkor 70-300g and a set of +1, +2, and +4 Tiffen

close-up lenses, and I hate them. The tiffens ghost horribly, even at

f/45. Total waste of money. I'll get nikons if I go for closeup

lenses again.

 

Anyway, would I be able to take decent, sharp macros with an 80-200

and closeups or extension tubes? And which is more practical, the

tubes or lenses?

 

Thanks!

[todd peach seattle, washi]

This is a question that may be better suited for the Nikon forum as you're asking for details between Nikon products. Maybe most of the 'Nikon' folks read the 'camera equipment' forum, but I thought I'd point it out.

[arnabdas]

I use the 105 AFD micro regularly, and I can attest to its wonderful qualities.

 

I think a 105 will complement your 70-300 better. For a serious macro shooter, a real macro lens is often irreplacable by any other setup that may be "good enough" most of the time.

 

If I were you I'd get a 105 AFD *and* a 5T/6T nikon double-element diopter for the 70-300 zoom nikkor.

 

However, you say - "that will let me take macros" -- how serious are you about macros? The 80-200 is a great lens and can work great with the Canon 500D 2-element diopter. That would be nice for occassional macros, when macro is not all you want to shoot and intend to carry only one lens. Related: After you get the 80-200/2.8 I doubt you'll use the 70-300 much, except in cases where you really need the exra 300mm reach.

[Jerry_]

Or you could find a AF Tamron 90mm f2.8 'D' Macro lens. It is just about as sharp as the AF 105mm f2.8D Micro-Nikkor.

 

 

Here is one example taken with a Tamron lens:

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1677606

[efusco]

I started shooting macro with close-up filters...got horrible results and gave up on macro for a long time....

 

Then, when I got my F5 and an 80-200 decided to try macro again, got some extension tubes and did "ok" with them, but found it tedious. Depending on how much you zoom the focus would be different requiring different extension tubes and exchanging them several times to find the right combination of zoom and extension and focus. The large lens size was cumbersome when working with tiny little flowers and such. Focus must be precise with macro and the focus ring on the 80-200 has just enough 'slop' to be tricky to be precise (though not insurmountable).

 

Ultimately I borrowed a friend's 105 macro and fell in love--saved up and still think it was one of the wisest lens purchases I've made...it makes macro shooting a pleasure. Not having to worry about whether the 3D matrix metering info is being properly transmitted, precise focus and f-stop data, it all works so nicely. I have heard, as Gerald suggests, nothing but good things about that Tamron lens, I'm kind of a Nikkor snob these days, but to save a little cash and get a very fine lens the Tamron makes a lot of sense.

 

Hope that helps a tad.

[mbeebee]

I agree with the above posts: If you're going to shoot macros seriously, you should look into a macro lens. I have the Tamron 90mm f2.8, and it's a really nice lens. Since I only shoot macros occasionally, though, and I try to cut down the amount of gear I carry around, I recently outfitted my 80-200 f2.8 with a Canon 500D close-up lens, and am really happy with the results, frankly not noticing much difference in direct comparisons with the Tamron. The nice thing about the zoom is that it also gives you more focal lengths, which can be useful for varying the background (because of the different angles of view).

[emaxxman]

The 80-200 is a fine multipurpose lens. I see no problem with using it for macro. John Shaw says he loves using a telephoto zoom with closeup lenses.

 

There are 2 issues with what you mention above. First is weight. That zoom is pretty heavy. Hiking around with that lens is going to be a chore...at least for me. Second, I don't think the Nikon closeup lenses will come in a filter size large enough for the 80-200 zoom. You'll have to go with Canon's double element 250D or 500D lenses. They're ALOT more costly than the Nikon. That may affect your decision.

 

Do you do any other shooting that would benefit from the 80-200 zoom? If so, then skip the macro and go for the zoom. If not, save your back and money and go for the macro.

[chuck_greene]

Jonathan,

 

Diopter close up lenses are easier to use on a zoom lens than extention tubes. With a close up lens you can just zoom to fine tune your cropping. If you zoom with an extention tube attached you are changing the focal length and hence the subject to film distance so you have to refocus and/or move the camera closer or farther away from the subject - it's a pain in the butt.

 

The easiest and cheapest thing for you to do is get a decent close up lens and play around with it on your existing 70-300. Buy a Nikon 5T or 6T diopter ($45) and sell the Tiffen crap. If you buy a used 5T or 6T you can always sell it again for about what you paid for it. With a 6T you should get close to life size magnification at 300mm and the lens focused to infinity (0.3m focal length x 3.0 diopter = 0.9 magnification). At least you can get a feel for how much you like macro work.

 

I own the AFD 105/2.8 micro and used to own the AFD 80-200/2.8ED (w/tripod collar) and a Canon 77mm 500D close up lens. The 80-200 with 500D will get you to about 0.6x life size with the lens at 200mm and at the minimum focus distance. The zoom + diopter is a nice combo if you mostly shoot landscapes and occassionally shoot macro. The 105/2.8 micro is sharper however, so if you do a lot of macro work of static subjects it may be worth the $$ to you. A 77mm 500D is around $135 new. An 80-200/2.8 is 3lbs of glass and bulk to haul around, definitely try one out before you buy if you go that route.

[john lehman, college alask]

For macro, you are probably not going to want to use autofocus anyway. I just got a manual Nikon 105 f/4 macro lens (supposedly sharper than the f/2.8) from Keh for $140, so you don't have to spend big bucks.