JessM Loc: Port

I own a Nikon D7100. I also own an AF Micro Nikkor 1:2.8 D, and I use them both constantly. I've had the lens for about 15 y, and I couldn't live without it. However, I'm beginning to lust after the Nikon AF FX Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED, for around $1800, because butterflies and other skittish critters like them demand more working distance. That's a helluva lot of money in any case -- certainly more than I should spend, and my conscience is beginning to talk to me. Moreover, I'm a bit worried about the future: When mirror-less Nikons are the only Nikons on the market, would my pricey 200 mm Micro-NIKKOR still work on a mirror-less camera? That's today's worry. Any/all advice will be welcomed. 73... ~jess

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Nikon has a history of preserving lens compatibility to new model Nikon camera bodies. I purchased a Nikon F2 brand new in 1972, along with six prime lenses. ALL of those lenses can be used on my current Nikon D800 body. I fully expect Nikon to honor their tradition of lens compatibility with future camera innovations.

alx Loc: NJ

Nikon already has the FTZ adapter for the release of the Z7 & Z6. They don't intend to lose their fan base.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I recommend considering a medium range telephoto lens for butterflies (and for dragonflies). You can pull them in from a distance that is well outside their scare-off range, and there are good opportunities to get soft, out of focus backgrounds. The issues (and there are always issues) is that it won't be so good for small butterflies, and if you are also using a micro lens for smaller subjects you will need to switch between the lenses. I work with Canon and my telephoto lens is the 100-400mm., and I recommend you try an equivilent one for Nikon. You can rent one to see what you think. I personally would not leave home to look for insects without my telephoto and my macro lens.

napabob Loc: Napa CA

I concur, love my 100-400 it amazes me regularly, and saving my $ to update my 5D mklll so I don't have to constantly switch lenses, then invite my lovely wife to caddy for me.......
just kidding dear..............

JessM Loc: Port

Thanks to all for these responses. I own a Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3, used for bird shots. But I'd not considered it for b'flys. Duuhhh… We'll give it a go. Mil gracias! … ~jess

olsonsview

The 200mm micro-nikkor is a D lens, not an AFS and as such will not focus with the mirrorless camera automatically. But then if you are shooting at the maximum macro capability, then you would manual focus anyways? Will it work was your question, so yeah it works, auto exposure is fine but no autofocus.

JessM Loc: Port

Thanks!! That could be a deal breaker -- unless mirrorless Nikons might eventually come in compatible format. For now, however, I'm testing the Tamron 150-600 mm lens per suggestions made here. If that works out, I might be able to "save" $1.8K.... :-)
I'm grateful for all suggestions received so far... 73... ~jess

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

JessM, I have the Nikon 200mm f4 macro lens and it is a true beast in all aspects. It weighs 2.5 lbs. so it is quite heavy and its length tends to make the camera front tip heavy due to the leverage it applies. I shoot it on a Nikon D810 full-frame and what I've learned from this lens is that with the minimum focus distance of 18-inches, in most cases I shoot more like 24-inches or more away from the subjects on my near daily insect hunts. What this means is that I almost always end up throwing pixels away when processing due to cropping the image for content. I believe that this would not be as much the case when used on a crop sensor camera.

I also found that my 60mm macro gives me the best "fill the frame with the subject" and my 105mm macro does about the same for the focus distances are much closer to the subject as well. I find when I am closer the off-camera flash performs much better and the level of the subject detail increases so the physical length of the lens is something I consider. When you move your flash further away from the camera body, it too adds front weight to the rig.

I do believe that I get more shots in the field with live insects with the 200mm for although I try to be as stealth as possible, many insects are quite skittish when the camera is less than a foot away. I can counter that a fair amount by going out very early before they warm up and get active, especially helpful for the stingers and biters.

As far as macro on mirrorless cameras, I have a Fujifilm X-T20 that I put a Fujifilm X mount to Nikon F mount adapter on so my macro lenses work just fine although focus and aperture are manual which I find to be enjoyable for it makes me think more about improving my camera skills.

So...Would I buy the Nikon 200mm macro again, absolutely. Do I find it to be a great lens, absolutely. Is it a good all around use macro lens, not exactly. Is it a good compliment to an arsenal of other focal lengths of macro lenses, oh yeah! Would I look at other manufacturer long focal length macro lenses, like a 180mm, yes, I would.

JessM Loc: Port

Many thanks, Sippy....
I still haven't had a chance to try the Tamron 150-600 'scope after finding that one leg of our tripod isn't holding (cracked height holders). I'm repairing it now.
Thanks also for reminding me of the need for a near-subject flash. Not in summertime, perhaps; FL has light (and heat) to spare these days. But eventually, we'll need to mount a couple of flashes.
At my age, and with no "heirs" interested in photography, I'm not really gung ho about spending all those shekels on just one lens, but I'm far from giving up on the idea, so I'm collecting all your opinions, looking at options, and trying to accumulate those shekels... :-)
Best Regards.... ~jess

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Enjoy the adventure whatever it may be. I retired at the first of the year and at 70-years old, macro photography has given me something that I enjoy embracing. I started out with a 105mm f2 macro then joined it with a 60mm f2 and a set of extension tubes. Worked great and it was all quite flexible but I was missing quality lighting for shooting macro is typically in the f11 to f16 range (although many push it up to f22). Eventually I purchased the 200mm f4.

What I noticed was that because all of them are 1 to 1 macro that regardless of which lens I used, the magnification was the same. What changed was the field of view between a wide angle 60mm and the narrow angle 200mm. What made the biggest impact however was the lighting because the further away you are from lighting the subject, the faster the light falls off and the darker the subject gets. With the 60mm I can be about 10-inches from the subject which means that my light that is attached to the end of my lens works great. However with the 200mm about 24-inches away, the light needs much more punch to get the same effect. This could be equated to trying to use a speedlight flash with a telephoto lens shooting a subject 100 feet away vs. shooting a subject 10-feet away with a regular lens and the same speedlight.

Another thing to consider in your quest of various macro lenses is that some macro lenses have stabilization which may be a big help in hand-held shooting. The Nikon 200mm does not have it so a steady hand or tripod can make quite a difference.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

While exploring the zoom, you can also look here: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2763849@N23/pool/ This shows what people can do with that lens. Not many insect pictures, but there are some and I believe they look promising.
I often still use my external flash on the camera when using my telephoto. Just to push in some more light and fill in the shadows. I have not caught what kind of flash you are using, but if you are using flash heads that attach to the lens, then that would be a complication with switching between the zoom and a micro lens. My flash is not of that sort, so it is not an issue for me.
To hold the macro or zoom lens steady, I used to use a steadying pole (which worked great), but with a big 'ol zoom lens in my kit now I have bumped up to a monopod with a Y-yoke on top (similar to this: https://www.amazon.com/Allen-Company-Adjustable-mono-pod-shooting/dp/B000AU4RTU/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1537063289&sr=8-14&keywords=Monopod+yoke ) rather than a head. I simply rest the lens on it when shooting, and it takes all the weight. I can even slow the shutter speed significantly, as if it was on a tripod, and still get good exposures on my crop sensor camera. To lug my camera around I use a Movo camera holster, which has been a great help.

JessM Loc: Port

Thanks again, to Sippy, and to Mark, who reminded me of FLICKR and other places. I haven't been holding that Tamron 150-600 mm steady enough since my -- recent -- 86th birthday, so I might go for a longish monopod. I doubt I'd be mistaken for Gandalf... I'm too short... :-)
73... ~jess
PS: I'm told that use of the word "shekel" is no longer acceptable. I meant no offense; I picked it up from a very good friend, the late Dr. Sid Cassin, Prof of Physiology at FL Med; Sid was my mentor in grad school; I miss him.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I can attest that Mark is giving excellent recommendation and real-world advice. I followed his recommendations myself and it made a big difference in the quality of my images. I found that the UHH True Macro Community knows and shares what they believe is best.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I vaguely remember something on the internet about saying 'shekel' is supposed to be anti Semitic now. As a life-long liberal of the usual, sensible kind, I can assure you that that is not true. Those to the far left of me are just nuts.
Oh, and merry Christmas. That is still perfectly ok, too. 😊