anirban_halder

<p>Good evening everyone,<br /> All the posts are really lovely. Worth seeing each of them. I specially like the portrait work of Andy Chubb. <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4034806"><br /> </a> <br /> This is my first post in "Nikon WedNesDAy Pic". Taken through my office window at downtown Minneapolis just before leaving work.<br /> Nikon D200 with 18-200mm VRII - f/16, 13 seconds ISO200. Cropped.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10169933-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Both Nikon 105mm VR Micro and 200mm AF F4 Micro are extremely good. 200mm f4 one, gives you more working distance as well as exceptional sharpness corner to corner. If used with tripod, the 200mm can be used for general purpose or birds also. The sharpness of 200mm is so good that even if you crop the pictures the still maintain very good quality.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anirbanh/sets/72157622584976801/show/<br>

This lens is very exotic and hard to find a new one. Probably Nikon is going to discontinue this lens in near future and will come up with a cheaper G version.</p>

<p>Well, here's first hand result. What I felt, it very difficult to reach close enough without scaring the object. This lens is super sharp. So even if you can not reach close enough to fill the frame, you can crop the pictures and still maintain very high quality.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anirbanh/sets/72157622584976801/</p>

<p>Thanks a lot everyone for your comments.<br>

Doug ~ thanks for posting the link. It already has lot of info.</p>

<p>"Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Zoom for Nikon" vs "Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S with <strong>1.7x TC</strong>"<br>

Which one will be better choice for real <strong>wildlife photography </strong>(not birds in our patio or animals in city zoo) and shooting wildlife all day long? I am looking for opinions from someone who <em>used/tried</em> both the lenses.<br>

What are the pros and cons of Sigma 150-500mm AF OS? The biggest advantage I see with sigma is cost and zoom convenience. I know Nikon 300mm f/4 is superb lens. But how good it is compared to Sigma when added to 1.7x TC, can someone please shed some light on that. <br>

Thanks ~Anirban</p>

<p>Joel, thanks a bunch. Very useful comments. Dieter, thanks to you too. So from both your comments it looks like AF 200mm micro is an extraordinary macro lens. 300mm f/4 with TC or 500mm are more suited for Wildlife. Thanks again for your inputs.<br>

Another question, considering the price of Nikon AF 200mm f/4 micro, is that lens truly that exceptional?</p>

<p>Have anyone used Nikon 200mm f/4 micro for general wildlife like birds or small animals?</p>

<ul>

<li>Is this lens convenient to use for such purposes?</li>

<li>Any tips on how to get best out of this lens for such occasions?</li>

</ul>

<p>Thanks ~Anirban</p>

<p>Savitri, I totally agree with you. Nikon 18-200mm isn’t meant for portrait. 50mm f/1.8 is far far better lens on that front. However, if you are taking a very close shot, sometime face or nose look too big with this 50mm lens due to DX camera’s crop factor. But still this 50mm is a real classy lens anyday.<br /> And, how could I miss mentioning Nikon 135mm f/2 DC? "<a href="http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1935/AF-DC-NIKKOR-135mm-f%252F2D.html">AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D"</a> <br /> It's THE Nikon lens for portrait. DC - Defocus contro, Nikon term, it lets you control the bokeh in the background as well as in the foreground. I have not seen better and dreamier bokeh than this lens. The bokeh in this lens is like smooth washes of color. Subject stays super sharp. This lens also provides you very flexible working distance for different moods and f/2 for low light photography. There is a smaller version of this lens, 105mm f/2 DC.<br /> Ahh! One more lens to think about. Isn’t it?<br /> --Anirban<br>

P.S: I really like the first sample image you posted. Very nice shot and so perfect framing.</p>

<p>Since you are looking at carrying less weight and you are using a DX camera, the choice in my opinion, is undoubtedly Nikon 18-200mm VR.</p>

<ul type="disc">

<li >It's not true that image quality of 18-200mm isn't good. 90% of image quality on any lens depends on the photographer. If you look at the book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Artistry-Exposure-Digital-Photographers/dp/0596529880/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256577923&sr=8-2">Practical Artistry: Light & Exposure for Digital Photographers</a> by Harold Davis", 70% of the snaps are taken in Nikon 18-200 and they are just WOW!!</li>

<li >If want to carry less weight and stay hassle free, why change lenses every other moment when there's one single lens that will give you same image quality.</li>

<li >Next question ~ what kind of subject will you use it for? I usually shoot at 90-120mm range. For me a 16-85mm Nikkor lens will fall short most of the time. At the same time, I do click wide angle shots too. Nikon 18-200mm provides you sufficient wide angle. You can just add a Canon 500D to this lens and shoot amazing macros.</li>

<li >You will miss many candid opportunities sometime while you change the lenses if you are carrying too many lenses . This can be avoided greatly by a lens with range 18-200mm. Also, you can carry this lens and camera every time you leave home. How handly!</li>

<li >Less lens change means less dust in your camera mirror and sensor, particularly if you are working in little bit adverse weather condition. If you visit (or if you have visited) one of the metro cities in India, you will know what dust and pollution can do to your camera and lens.</li>

<li >Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 is a great lens but too heavy and bulky for day to day use. You can’t do a silent casual photography with this lens.</li>

</ul>

<p>My 2 cents. Finally it's your call. Will be curious to know what you decide finally.</p>

<p >~ Anirban Halder </p>