Nikon micro 105mm or Nikon 200mm micro?
Dec 2, 2012 00:16:32 #
I have the 60mm micro Nikon and wanting to upgrade. I like the thought of the 105mm with silent wave motor and VR but its not that great a step up from 60mm. However the 200mm micro is old but apparently an optically perfect pin sharp lens. I guess the 105 would be the same. The auto focus is slow on the 200mm but for micro work manuel is best I think. What do others think of these two lenses? I guess the 105 with fast focusing would also be a great portrait lens? getting in close to the subject is very distracting with the 60mm and the 105 takes it away from the subject where I guess it is a lot less distracting but the 200 is about a half metre clearance at 1:1 which would be great. Thoughts please?
Dec 2, 2012 01:35:24 #
If you want someone to answer this who know what they're talking about, try reposting it in the MACRO section. :thumbup: :)
Dec 2, 2012 03:58:46 #
My Nikkor 105G is permanently mounted to my D5000, which I use weekly. Minimum Working Distance (lens front element to subject) is required to capture 1:1 magnification (life-size) images. Here are a few comparisons:
60-mm macro = 90-mm (3.5-inches) MWD;
105-mm macro = 157-mm (6.2-inches) MWD;
200-mm macro = 300-mm (11.8-inches) MWD.
The problem with 60-mm macro is the extremely short WD (spooks insects).
The problem with 200-mm macro is the difficulty tracking a moving insect (very narrow angle of view).
The vast majority of experienced, field macro-photographers use lenses in the 90-mm to 105-mm range.
60-mm macro = 90-mm (3.5-inches) MWD;
105-mm macro = 157-mm (6.2-inches) MWD;
200-mm macro = 300-mm (11.8-inches) MWD.
The problem with 60-mm macro is the extremely short WD (spooks insects).
The problem with 200-mm macro is the difficulty tracking a moving insect (very narrow angle of view).
The vast majority of experienced, field macro-photographers use lenses in the 90-mm to 105-mm range.
Dec 2, 2012 06:20:10 #
Hi saxkiwi,
I have the Nikkor 105G. It is truly a superb lens.
When I was in the process of deciding which one to buy I chose the 105G, mainly as it has VR. For hand-held work, this is pretty essential, especially using it for close focus.
Macro work, I.E MFR, is better in manual focus and if you are on a tripod it is advisable to turn off VR.
However, VR is still an excellent benefit to have for hand-held macro.
The focusing is lightning fast in auto which is great for close-up when you want to 'catch that moment'.
A 105-mm also makes an ideal portrait lens. Being a prime lens, some would argue it is better that the 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms.
I also have the Nikon 'Holy Trinity' but would prefer to use the 105mm for it's smaller size/weight whenever possible.
I use the 105G for general photography, where a 200-mm might be a little too strong.
I have the Nikkor 105G. It is truly a superb lens.
When I was in the process of deciding which one to buy I chose the 105G, mainly as it has VR. For hand-held work, this is pretty essential, especially using it for close focus.
Macro work, I.E MFR, is better in manual focus and if you are on a tripod it is advisable to turn off VR.
However, VR is still an excellent benefit to have for hand-held macro.
The focusing is lightning fast in auto which is great for close-up when you want to 'catch that moment'.
A 105-mm also makes an ideal portrait lens. Being a prime lens, some would argue it is better that the 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms.
I also have the Nikon 'Holy Trinity' but would prefer to use the 105mm for it's smaller size/weight whenever possible.
I use the 105G for general photography, where a 200-mm might be a little too strong.
Dec 2, 2012 09:48:50 #
I agree with EnEs63, also the 200-mm is great but heavy, not the best for chasing after insects, as you know A/F is slow. The 105-mm almost exclusively stays on my camera.
Dec 2, 2012 12:31:03 #
I do not know how you shoot but unless you wish to be bound to a tripod I would strongly recommend that you chose the 105-mm. I shoot Canon and have both a 100-mm lens and a 180-mm lens, and have found that it is very difficult to shoot handheld with the 180-mm but I am able to get very good handheld shots with the 100-mm. The additional length greatly adds to motion blur and that is something that many people do not realize until after their purchase.
There are positives for the 180-mm in that it does give you a greater working distance and greater reach in close up photography not to mention that the backgrounds it produces are very creamy. It also doubles as an excellent medium length telephoto lens. If I had to get rid of one of my macro lenses, I am sure that because of the utility and ease of use of the 100-mm lens that it would be the 180-mm that I would part with.
There are positives for the 180-mm in that it does give you a greater working distance and greater reach in close up photography not to mention that the backgrounds it produces are very creamy. It also doubles as an excellent medium length telephoto lens. If I had to get rid of one of my macro lenses, I am sure that because of the utility and ease of use of the 100-mm lens that it would be the 180-mm that I would part with.
Dec 3, 2012 02:42:48 #
EnEs63 wrote:
Hi saxkiwi, br I have the Nikkor 105G. It is truly... (show quote)
Thanks.. what about the close up lens breathing issue? have you noticed this?
Dec 3, 2012 04:01:16 #
My Nikkor 105G is permanently mounted to my D5000, which I use weekly. Minimum Working Distance (lens front element to subject) is required to capture 1:1 magnification (life-size) images. Here are a few comparisons:
60-mm macro = 90-mm (3.5-inches) MWD;
105-mm macro = 157-mm (6.2-inches) MWD;
200-mm macro = 300-mm (11.8-inches) MWD.
The problem with 60-mm macro is the extremely short WD (spooks insects).
The problem with 200-mm macro is the difficulty tracking a moving insect (very narrow angle of view).
The vast majority of experienced, field macro-photographers use lenses in the 90-mm to 105-mm range.
I use a speedlight for all of my macro-photography. This solves two problems:
1.) More light allows 1/200-sec shutter duration (proper background exposure), and f/16 (increased DoF).
2.) Short speedlight illumination (1/1000-sec duration) eliminated slight lens movement from breathing, heartbeat, and hand tremor.
60-mm macro = 90-mm (3.5-inches) MWD;
105-mm macro = 157-mm (6.2-inches) MWD;
200-mm macro = 300-mm (11.8-inches) MWD.
The problem with 60-mm macro is the extremely short WD (spooks insects).
The problem with 200-mm macro is the difficulty tracking a moving insect (very narrow angle of view).
The vast majority of experienced, field macro-photographers use lenses in the 90-mm to 105-mm range.
I use a speedlight for all of my macro-photography. This solves two problems:
1.) More light allows 1/200-sec shutter duration (proper background exposure), and f/16 (increased DoF).
2.) Short speedlight illumination (1/1000-sec duration) eliminated slight lens movement from breathing, heartbeat, and hand tremor.
Dec 3, 2012 05:26:29 #
elandel
Loc: Milan, Italy
I think that if your not a pro and don't have particular needs, it's all about compromise so the 105 is the best IMHO
Dec 3, 2012 08:15:21 #
As usual, nikonian is right on the money!I agree with his advise and can't add much to it.
Dec 3, 2012 08:40:19 #
Jerry Green
Loc: Huntsville, AL
I have both and each has its special place. I usually shoot with the 200mm on a tripod and the 105mm VR if I want to shoot handheld. The Nikon teleconverters work just fine on the 105mm VR when I need the extra reach. Extension tubes also add extra capabilities to both of these lens. If I could only have one I would go with the 105mm VR plus extension tubes and teleconverters as needed.
Dec 3, 2012 10:34:18 #
Dec 3, 2012 10:45:21 #
I really enjoy the fabulous work that you have posted on your two sites and I was wondering if you could explain in more detail this set up that you refer to on one of your photos:
"Nikon SB-600 speedlight with O-Flash 3/4-circle Fresnel prism attachment."
Thanks:
bill.polkinhorn@polkinhorn.com
"Nikon SB-600 speedlight with O-Flash 3/4-circle Fresnel prism attachment."
Thanks:
bill.polkinhorn@polkinhorn.com
Dec 3, 2012 10:53:51 #
I have been trying to chose between the 105 and the 200 for macro work and after reading the above comments, I chose the 105. Thanks UHH!
Dec 3, 2012 11:34:24 #
budster33
That was my choice and I haven't regretted it.....
Good shooting
That was my choice and I haven't regretted it.....
Good shooting
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.