105 or 200mm macro lens?

[RalphC]

Have never really had a specialist macro lens. Reviews suggest Nikon 200mm best but camera shop is recommending the 105mm VR as a better focal length. Any thoughts or views please? Use will be nature (bees etc.) and some eBay stuff.

cheers

R.

 

[Hairyduck]

105 is much newer technology/design and a lot lighter than the 200mm also with the VR it's a lot nicer to use handheld so that would be my choice (in fact it was my choice as I own the 105

 

[Dale_tem]

I was reading the sigma 105mm macro lens review in the review section and it was commented that a longer lens will make it easier to get the picture, but the shorter lens gives you a better picture (but you need to be closer)

 

[Martyn...]

Working distance is greater the longer the focal length.

The Nikkor 200 is a superb lens, but it is heavy and does not have VR, the 105 is lighter and has VR.

Optically both are superb, and you do not have to use them only for macro they are great short telephoto lenses.

I have the 105VR, given the choice again I would sway towards the 200 because of its greater working distance ... possibly.

As Kevin said if you are going to use it hand held the 105 is the way to go, tripod / monopod mounted I would sway towards the 200.

Other point is that the 105VR has the motor in the lens the 200 does not and would require a body with the focusing motor in it.

 

[RalphC]

Thanks all. Feel reassured that the 105 VR is a good choice for me. Given that the factory in Thailand is under water and the north Japanese factory was affected by the Tsunami, I understand that Nikon availability is likely to be constrained so was worried I was being nudged into a convenient option rather than the right 'choice'.

Cheers.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

105 may be easier to use, but ultimately 200mm will produce slightly more pleasing results.

 

[Trig's]

I would have a look at the Sigma 150mm f2.8 ex apo its been reviewed on here at Sigma 150mm review