Nikokn 105mm vs 200mm micro lenses
Mar 22, 2012 14:04:47 #
I'm torn between Nikon's 105mm and 200mm micro lenses. I like the ability to be farther away with the 200mm but wonder about DOF issues. Is it worth twice the price of the 105mm?
Mar 22, 2012 17:14:30 #
To capture 1:1 (life-size) with my Nikkor 105-mm macro lens, my WD is approximately 6-inches.
A 150-mm macro lens requires approx. 9-inches WD, and
a 200-mm macro lens requires approx. 12-inches WD.
I normally shoot macro between 9-inches to 12-inches WD for better DOF, then crop final image to desired magnification.
A 150-mm macro lens requires approx. 9-inches WD, and
a 200-mm macro lens requires approx. 12-inches WD.
I normally shoot macro between 9-inches to 12-inches WD for better DOF, then crop final image to desired magnification.
Mar 22, 2012 17:33:53 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Sounds like the extra cost doesn't buy much - at least in terms of WD. Thanks for the prompt response.To capture 1:1 (life-size) with my Nikkor 105-mm macro lens, my WD is approximately 6-inches.
A 150-mm macro lens requires approx. 9-inches WD, and
a 200-mm macro lens requires approx. 12-inches WD.
I normally shoot macro between 9-inches to 12-inches WD for better DOF, then crop final image to desired magnification.
A 150-mm macro lens requires approx. 9-inches WD, and
a 200-mm macro lens requires approx. 12-inches WD.
I normally shoot macro between 9-inches to 12-inches WD for better DOF, then crop final image to desired magnification.
Mar 23, 2012 10:18:56 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
aammatj wrote:
yep the 200 is worth it - and WD is not or should not be the only criteria you have and if it is then get yourself a 300mm lens and slap an extension tube on it.....softer but more WDI'm torn between Nikon's 105mm and 200mm micro lenses. I like the ability to be farther away with the 200mm but wonder about DOF issues. Is it worth twice the price of the 105mm?
Mar 23, 2012 10:46:16 #
docrob wrote:
Please help me understand what makes it worth the extra $aammatj wrote:
yep the 200 is worth it - and WD is not or should not be the only criteria you have and if it is then get yourself a 300mm lens and slap an extension tube on it.....softer but more WDI'm torn between Nikon's 105mm and 200mm micro lenses. I like the ability to be farther away with the 200mm but wonder about DOF issues. Is it worth twice the price of the 105mm?
Mar 25, 2012 21:03:47 #
aammatj wrote:
I have used both of these lenses. The Nikkor 200-mm is f/4, and the Nikkor 105-mm is f/2.8. The 200-mm is quite heavy, and not the best lens for chasing insects and shooting handheld. The 105-mm is more suited to this, IMO, and is what I use most of the time. As far as cost, the longer focal length will be the biggest factor in added cost. Not sure if that makes it worth the additional $700-$900.docrob wrote:
Please help me understand what makes it worth the extra $aammatj wrote:
yep the 200 is worth it - and WD is not or should not be the only criteria you have and if it is then get yourself a 300mm lens and slap an extension tube on it.....softer but more WDI'm torn between Nikon's 105mm and 200mm micro lenses. I like the ability to be farther away with the 200mm but wonder about DOF issues. Is it worth twice the price of the 105mm?
Mar 26, 2012 10:29:28 #
Viceroy wrote:
I appreciate the opinion of a person who owns both. Thanks for responding. quote=aammatj quote=docrob quote=aammatj I'm to... (show quote)
Mar 31, 2012 07:53:54 #
RICHARD46
Loc: New Jersey
What do you think off the Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro? I was leaning towards that.
Mar 31, 2012 12:20:21 #
Easyrider wrote:
I have no personal experience with Sigma lenses. Your best bet is to GOOGLE or Ask.com your question.What do you think off the Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro? I was leaning towards that.
Mar 31, 2012 12:53:46 #
docrob wrote:
yep the 200 is worth it - and WD is not or should not be the only criteria you have and if it is then get yourself a 300mm lens and slap an extension tube on it.....softer but more WD
While it doesn't get me to 1:1, I find the 300mm f/4 with tubes to be an interesting approach to shooting close-ups. Here is the full frame and a section of that frame at 100%. Skinny DOF, but sharpness doesn't seem to play into it. I was using all 3 Kenko tubes for a total of 68mm extension. The african violet flower was about 28mm in diameter. Working distance about 27 inches or about 650mm. Lighting provided by the pop-up flash on the D300.
It's a great combination for large insects like dragons and small flowers.
Full frame:
http://ericpix.net/Online/Hog/F/stem_full.jpg
100% crop:
http://ericpix.net/Online/Hog/F/stem_crop.jpg
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.