The 200mm MicroNikor is one of the best macro lens I have used (out of a total of 4). The 200 is much better than the 105 if you plan to photograph insects--don't get so close so you don't frighten them so much..
You do not get less depth of field with longer focal lengths. Focal length only affects the subject distance, and of course longer lenses may be less convenient to handle, but for any given reproduction ratio and aperture, depth of field will be the same, regardless of the focal length used. .
GED
Loc: North central Pa
boncarbo42 wrote:
Newbie just getting started late and saying thanks to the members and their educating posts. I am wanting to add final (my wife's hope) lens to my batch and wanting a dedicated macro to use on a Nikon D600 or D500. Considering a refurbished Nikon 200/f4 thru B&H. Have not done macro previously so welcome any suggestions of that vs the Nikon 105mm. Thinking the distance from lens to subject is important. Appreciate any thoughts
I use both of those lenses and you can't go wrong with either one, you have to decide what your going to be photographing mostly to determine how much working distance you need. For insects, reptiles and amphibians, and any other critters you don't want to frighten the 200mm would be my choice. If I could only have one or the other it would be the 200/4.
Bozsik
Loc: Orangevale, California
Bozsik wrote:
Dotto. Good advice.
Of course this was supposed to be Ditto, Duh. My bad. But if I were going to choose an all-around micro to use, I would go with the 105mm. You can pick up a 105mm 2.8G Micro that would be in almost new condition for about $300.00. I have 2 of them as well as the newer version with the VR, and a non-autofocus 200 f4. They are all dedicated to specific tasks, but the one I use the most is the 105mm.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.