Macro Lens - Which one for D200?

PaulBoy

PaulBoy

Messages
1,544
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Need to get this sorted quickly before I break my new year resolution about lens purchasing :nuts:
When I get the 70-300mm from Kerso (any news Ian btw?) I will have my three ydangle mid & longer zooms sorted but wont have any macro capability?
I was looking at something like the 105mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor Micro lens which was the one before the latest VR version - I don't really "get" the VR on the new one? - would you not mainly do macro on a tripod in which case you'd turn off VR anyway? - maybe Nikon think we'd like to dump our tripods & the VR will allow us to do so? If so does anyone here have experience of one or both Nikon 105mm's? The new one has AF-S & IF (which I presume means the lens doesn't extend in length when zoomed in?) both attractive addditions but worth the price hike (?)
I know the Sigma 105mm is highly regarded (JoeT here has one iirc)
Are there any others I should be considering? (e.g. the Tamron 90mm which Thom Hogan raves about in his review of the Nikkor 105mm VR)
I'm tempted to say budget isn't an issue but I don't want to go much over £400 if I can avoid it (which might mean importing from HK) - I will also buy used especially if its from a dealer rather than 3Bay ...
Hope you can help - Paul (y)
 
Joe T does indeed have the Sigma 105mm! :p

Both Nikkors are better, so it really comes down to budget. I know what you mean about the new VR one and that VR doesnt make much sense on a macro lens. However, if i remember correctly, the new version is better in other wasy (cant remember which right now!).

I think that VR on a tripod may help to smooth out any other vibrations such as those ocmign through the ground, or those from the shutter being depressed.

The Tamron is much on a par with the Sigma, some reviews favour one, some the other.
 
Paul, if I was in the market for a macro lens I would have no hesitation in going for the Nikon 105mm VR for a number of reasons. You know the optics are going to be top quality, it's a good focal length which can also be used as a prime for portrait work and the VR, for me, would be a godsend. There are many times when I take macro shots handheld e.g. when chasing hoverflies or bees around the garden and at the moment I often have to use flash which increases the weight considerably.

I think Marianne has the VR so she will probably be the best one to advise on this.

Hope this helps.
 
Thanks Joe for those comments ...
About:
However, if i remember correctly, the new version is better in other wasy (cant remember which right now!).
Click to expand...
I metioned in my (long :popcorn:) post ... "The new one has AF-S & IF (which I presume means the lens doesn't extend in length when zoomed in?) both attractive addditions but worth the price hike (?)" ... would they be the improvements you were thinking of? - The non VR version is tack sharp but slow to focus allegedly - ED glass was also missing from the non VR version ...
As you also said it comes down to price - can I justify the Nikkor VR at double the price of the Sigma or Tamron? - Hmmm TP spending my overtime stash again :bang:
Paul (y)
 
The chances are you will be manually focussing anyway so AF speed is largely immaterial.
 
Hacker said:
Paul, if I was in the market for a macro lens I would have no hesitation in going for the Nikon 105mm VR for a number of reasons. You know the optics are going to be top quality, it's a good focal length which can also be used as a prime for portrait work and the VR, for me, would be a godsend. There are many times when I take macro shots handheld e.g. when chasing hoverflies or bees around the garden and at the moment I often have to use flash which increases the weight considerably.

I think Marianne has the VR so she will probably be the best one to advise on this.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks Hacker (y) - I'll see if Marianne looks in or drop her a PM if she doesn't ... Paul ;)
 
I have the Tamron 90mm and it's very nice. I usually use AF and it does have a tendency to hunt occasionally but other than that I have absolutely no complaints, especially for the price. Reviews say it's on a par quality-wise with the Canon 100mm, but you can generally pick it up for about £100 less (mine was £280 I think).

Have a look at my Flickr pages for sample pics (macro, water and ladybird sets)!
 
The Tamron looks like an amazing lens full stop. The fact that it's only £209 from

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_29&products_id=47

makes it a complete bargain.

I'm sure you've seen the reviews of it below, but if not...

"and it's easily as good as the corresponding (classic) Micro-Nikkor"

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_90_28_nikon/index.htm

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/51/cat/22

I don't even do macro, but I'm strongly fighting the urge to get one myself!
 
Richard said:
I have the Tamron 90mm and it's very nice. I usually use AF and it does have a tendency to hunt occasionally but other than that I have absolutely no complaints, especially for the price. Reviews say it's on a par quality-wise with the Canon 100mm, but you can generally pick it up for about £100 less (mine was £280 I think).

Have a look at my Flickr pages for sample pics (macro, water and ladybird sets)!
Click to expand...

Richard - Thanks for the reply - You are right your pics with the Tamron are superb - I already knew it was a great lens - My question to you then as a Canon user would be if you could have a lens that gives you the quality of the Tamron but adds faster focus and vibration reduction (IS on a Canon) would you pay extra for it? - Hacker (who has taken some superb macro shots like yourself) believes it is worth the extra & I tend to side with him (?)

BeatPoet - Thanks for your reply too - I have no doubt over the quality / price of the Tamron & have used OneStop several times before ...

Paul (y)
 
Cheers :)

Most of my pics are taken in manual (ISO100-1/200-F8) with the flash providing the necessary light. It does bulk up the camera a bit as Hacker said but all my shots are handheld and it hasn't really hindered me. Of course the D200 is a little bigger than my 350D :)

As for IS I'm a bit confused as to when you would need it. Insects are generally fast buggers so you'll need a fast shutter anyway. I suppose it would be useful for pics of flowers and anything else static?
 
Have you had a look at the new Sigma 70mm f2.8 Macro? With the 1.5x crop factor it will have the same field of view as the 105mm VR Nikkor Macro on a 35mm body. Personally think the 105mm (152.5mm on APS-C) is too long. This will allow you to save a little and invest in the Sigma Macro flash, which you will need anyway,... Think it goes a little further than just buying the lens.

Just my two cents.

King.

EDIT: For 602.92 from the good ol' warehouse you can get the above.
 
Richard said:
Cheers :)

Most of my pics are taken in manual (ISO100-1/200-F8) with the flash providing the necessary light. It does bulk up the camera a bit as Hacker said but all my shots are handheld and it hasn't really hindered me. Of course the D200 is a little bigger than my 350D :)

As for IS I'm a bit confused as to when you would need it. Insects are generally fast buggers so you'll need a fast shutter anyway. I suppose it would be useful for pics of flowers and anything else static?
Click to expand...

Richard - Thanks again - Handheld WOW you must have steady hands!
For a shaky handed novice the IS would help I'm sure
King B has stirred things up with talk of the new Sigma 70mm & flash so I need to investigate the flash side as I don't have any (TP spends all my money again :bang:)

Much obliged so far & keep the ideas coming ... Paul (y)
 
At this stage I wouldn't look at a dedicated macro/ring flash as you can easily use a standard gun with a bit of ingenuity. :D I was looking at either a ringflash or a macro bracket but both were quite expensive and after a bit of thought and £3 spent in Woolworths I came up with this....

S4300008.jpg


As you can see the Sigma 180mm macro is a bit of a beast but it gives me a good working distance. This lighting rig works quite well and allows you to move quicky, which is particularly useful for focussing rather than turning the focus ring (just move in and out).

As for VR I think it would be useful as often you will be shooting insects who are stationary or moving only slightly (e.g. feeding) and if you don't want to use flash (it can give dark backgrounds) I can imagine it would be very useful.

I'm not sure if you've seen A Beginners Guide to Macro which I wrote a few months back, it's not in-depth but it should give you a few pointers and tips which I found out through trial and error.
 
Hacker - Cheers again - Yes I have read your guide :love:
I honestly believe if my missus saw me creeping around the garden with a rig like yours she'd be straight on the phone to Broadmoor!
It does help me make my mind up a bit though as I could see the Nikkor 105mm VR on its own should do me for the majority of my proposed macro stuff (bugs / flowery stuff etc)
Something else that I thought of was I have a few gigs coming up and wondered with the Nikkor being f2.8 & having AF-S & VR whether it'd be any good for shooting in a gig w/o flash (probably have to crank up the ISO) - Just a thought as that could convince me to spend more on the Nikkor but be able to use it other than for just macro which appears to be the case against the Sigmas & Tamrons ... Paul (y)
 
PaulBoy said:
Hacker - Cheers again - Yes I have read your guide :love:
I honestly believe if my missus saw me creeping around the garden with a rig like yours she'd be straight on the phone to Broadmoor!
It does help me make my mind up a bit though as I could see the Nikkor 105mm VR on its own should do me for the majority of my proposed macro stuff (bugs / flowery stuff etc)
Something else that I thought of was I have a few gigs coming up and wondered with the Nikkor being f2.8 & having AF-S & VR whether it'd be any good for shooting in a gig w/o flash (probably have to crank up the ISO) - Just a thought as that could convince me to spend more on the Nikkor but be able to use it other than for just macro which appears to be the case against the Sigmas & Tamrons ... Paul (y)
Click to expand...

Advice :welcome: Especially on the Nikkor for gigs query ... Paul :thinking:
 
Hacker said:
f/2.8 and VR? No brainer really! :D
Click to expand...

So for those of us lacking in the brain department (especially after a heavy night on the Magners!) the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR would be up to the job at a gig (?) Kerso has quoted me a crackin' price for one btw :love:
Final (stoopid) question for now - about ring flashes - are they for macro only or can they be used as "normal" flash?
Paul (y)
 
PaulBoy said:
So for those of us lacking in the brain department (especially after a heavy night on the Magners!) the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR would be up to the job at a gig (?) Kerso has quoted me a crackin' price for one btw :love:
Click to expand...

Definitely. You need the biggest aperture you can get for hand held available light shots, and 2.8 is pretty fast for a lens of that focal length. Also the image stabilisation will allow you to hand hold shots at least 2 stops lower than would be possible without it, so if you have the dosh I'd get it ordered. ;)

Final (stoopid) question for now - about ring flashes - are they for macro only or can they be used as "normal" flash?
Paul (y)
Click to expand...

They can be used for normal photography but the whole point of them really is that they produce rather flat shadowless lighting and little modelling in your shots which is why they tend to be used in macro, medical and scientific work where even light is more important than the aesthetics.
 
Thanks CT - TP seems pretty good at ravaging my wallet (!) but the idea that the Nikkor would not necessarily need flash & the bonus that I could use it at gigs should be enough for me to drop Kerso a PM & order one :clap:
Like I said at the start of this post bang goes my N.Y.R already :bonk:(if I'm the first do I get a prize :nuts:)
Paul ;)
 
Hi Paul, just got in from a special weekend with mydaughter and her family!

Barry and I do indeed have that 105mm VR Micro lens...the VR is next to useless on reallyclose up macro work, something which disappointed me at first because I felt the beauty of that lens was to be able to do without a tripod, but the results close up using a tripod are out of this world IMO and hand held portrait work is second to none, I have taken some lovely portraits with it, remember these?? Angellica Bell and Maddie Its a special lens, one we are really happy to have in our kit :)
 
Marianne said:
Hi Paul, just got in from a special weekend with mydaughter and her family!

Barry and I do indeed have that 105mm VR Micro lens...the VR is next to useless on reallyclose up macro work, something which disappointed me at first because I felt the beauty of that lens was to be able to do without a tripod, but the results close up using a tripod are out of this world IMO and hand held portrait work is second to none, I have taken some lovely portraits with it, remember these?? Angellica Bell and Maddie Its a special lens, one we are really happy to have in our kit :)
Click to expand...

Marianne - thanks for that - not exactly what I was hoping to hear but very helpful - yes the portraits you linked to are fantastic which is another tick inthe yes box (y)
Paul
 
FWIW ... I have the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 but NOT VR ... and I think it is a superb piece of glass ... would not be without it in my kit bag that's for sure ... (y) ... however, if I was buying now and both the non-VR and the VR were available what would I choose ... :thinking: ... personally I don't believe the additional cost of the VR would provide any more benefit in everyday real terms for my use ... Colin's particular penchant for chasing bugs around the garden excepted ... :D

But personally I wouldn't look at alternatives to the Nikkor for Macro ... so if only the VR were available it's a one horse race for me ... just imo of course ... :naughty:

HTH and doesn't serve confuse the issue ... ;)




:p

 
Just sorted out payment with Ian aka Kerso so should be the proud owner of a new 105mm VR in a week or so :clap: - Maybe I'll get it in time to use it on my entry for his Photo Comp (?) That'd be cool :woot:
Paul - Thanks as always for the advice (dead easy spending someone else's money :razz:)
 
Ok - so you spent your money! Been a busy time and this is the first at the k/board since Saturday!

The VR is actually CHEAPER than the old 105 Macro..... so it's got good VFM, it's faster, quieter, sharper and is better corrected with ED glass. It's a superb bit of glass, as Marianne has said - not a lens we'd like to do without.

As for VR and macro work.... it's a non-starter if you're serious about using the lens to it's greatest ability. I'd always use a tripod if I can. Biggest problem I've found with flowers is .... WIND. No amount of image stabilisation is gonna cure that. Maybe VR is useful handheld for butterflies and the like but anything smaller or closer is pushing it a bit. Just like AF, it's better turned off for proper control of depth of field etc,.

Incidentally, never use VR [or IS] if you're using a tripod. The technology goes sensing for any movement/vibration, if there isn't any it creates it's own (sort of) cos there should always be some ..... then it's worse than camera shake :LOL:

Not wishing to stir up trouble but Nikon quote three stops improvement in handholding... something I can vouch for certainly.

Anyway, you've paid your money and have a made a good choice! :clap:
 
Good choice Paul ... sure you won't regret it and you might even win that Kerso comp yet ... (y)




:p
 
chuckles said:
Ok - so you spent your money! Been a busy time and this is the first at the k/board since Saturday!

The VR is actually CHEAPER than the old 105 Macro..... so it's got good VFM, it's faster, quieter, sharper and is better corrected with ED glass. It's a superb bit of glass, as Marianne has said - not a lens we'd like to do without.

As for VR and macro work.... it's a non-starter if you're serious about using the lens to it's greatest ability. I'd always use a tripod if I can. Biggest problem I've found with flowers is .... WIND. No amount of image stabilisation is gonna cure that. Maybe VR is useful handheld for butterflies and the like but anything smaller or closer is pushing it a bit. Just like AF, it's better turned off for proper control of depth of field etc,.

Incidentally, never use VR [or IS] if you're using a tripod. The technology goes sensing for any movement/vibration, if there isn't any it creates it's own (sort of) cos there should always be some ..... then it's worse than camera shake :LOL:

Not wishing to stir up trouble but Nikon quote three stops improvement in handholding... something I can vouch for certainly.

Anyway, you've paid your money and have a made a good choice! :clap:
Click to expand...

Chuckles - Thank you for the words of wisdom & support - I have had a few VR lenses before so was aware of the issues with tripod etc damn clever these Nikon people (you'd think the camera could tell the lens its on a tripod? hehe)
I am looking forward to trying the lens on macro first although the lack of critters / flora etc at this time of year means I might be taking pics of something really pathetic! (perhaps the inside of my (very) empty wallet ...
Paul (y)
 
Hi Paul,
Body only is £395 & 10 postage
18-55 kit is £439 £ 10 or £20
Postage is priced at cost from Scotland.
Please advise? Regards Ian.



PaulBoy said:
Chuckles - Thank you for the words of wisdom & support - I have had a few VR lenses before so was aware of the issues with tripod etc damn clever these Nikon people (you'd think the camera could tell the lens its on a tripod? hehe)
I am looking forward to trying the lens on macro first although the lack of critters / flora etc at this time of year means I might be taking pics of something really pathetic! (perhaps the inside of my (very) empty wallet ...
Paul (y)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top