200mm f4 micro question « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

200mm f4 micro question

(17 posts) (8 voices)

Tags:

qwerty

member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 12
offline

I understand that it is Nikon's flagship micro lens. And so far no news if its going to be updated or not. Would you guys suggest it would make a great buy or wait and see when the next version shows up?

I guess the reason for this question is that I don't want to be caught out if the next one is few years away and the current stock is fast dwindling.

I don't have any urgent need for it at present but I can find use for it this coming year.

Another question, I'm trying to find out what the imgs would look like on a D300 crop sensor and a full frame sensor?

Any constructive opinions and suggestions?

Posted 3 years ago #
Brandonfs

junior member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 6
offline

Good luck even finding one...

From what I have heard (I do not own one), this is one of the best macro lenses ever made. I would just get it now.

If/when a new one comes, it is going to be substantially more expensive, and probably have af-s and VR, both of which don't matter for real macro work. What it won't have, however, is an aperture ring, meaning you won't be able to use it with extension tubes, unless Nikon finally decides to make some that work with G lenses.

Point is, this is an amazing lens as it is, if you can find it now, get it.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

+1

Simply can't go wrong with high-quality glass. Good glass was, is, and will be good glass.

BTW Welcome to the forum qwerty!

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I faced the same dilemma last summer and just bought it. It's a fantastic lens. Everywhere I looked it was back-ordered, then on a lark I called a local store and they had a customer decline pick-up and had one available. I've been very happy with it on my D90. I can't speak for in in FF, but I have no reason to believe it wouldn't be just as good. One of Nikon's best lens' ever.

Posted 3 years ago #
Panamon_Creel

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 95
offline

querty, welcome to the NR forums.
No doubt the 200 f/4 AF-D Micro Nikkor is a very good lens but I don't see it any better than the 105 VR or even the Sigma 180.
What will be your main uses for this macro lens?

Posted 3 years ago #
qwerty

member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 12
offline

I would be using it mostly for shooting textures for CG, macro based timelapse and capturing spherical panoramas.

Posted 3 years ago #
qwerty

member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 12
offline

sorry it was the seconds one available on ebay? What do you guys make of ebay for buying used lenses?

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

I just got a great used 80-200mm ƒ/2.8 off eBay, and we had no problems at all. My dad also got a (Canon) 35mm lens of eBay, plus a microphone for his 7D. Haven't run into trouble yet.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I love ebay, and Ifthe seller is honest, then You are buying checked product with a discount.

Posted 3 years ago #
Panamon_Creel

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 95
offline

qwerty said:
I would be using it mostly for shooting textures for CG, macro based timelapse and capturing spherical panoramas.

So mostly studio type work with tripod for which the Micro 200 will be good for but on the other hand does it really require the extra working distance of the long focal length?
Also IMO 200mm might be a little long for spherical Panos but maybe you need it for your type of intended work. The long focal length makes the lens rather large and heavy, furthermore increasing the mag factor beyond 1:1 will require more extension than for an equivalent increased mag factor on a shorter focal length 1:1 macro lens.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to talk you out of it (you already sound decided anyways :) ), just asking you to think about if it is the right/best tool for the job you want it to do.

As for DX vs. FX performance of the lens I can't give you input since I only tried it some time ago with DX when I didn't have a FX camera yet but I'm sure it will perform well on FX. Disregarding the specific lens I prefer FX for Macro nowadays due to the better high ISO performance but also use DX if I don't need to push the ISO and if the crop factor is helpful.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

It'll probably look like a 300mm lens with the 1.5 crop.

And I would wait until the first couple weeks of February, that's when the next rumored announcement for new Nikon products is.

And if it doesn't get updated until then, I would go for it because Nikon is extremely slow with updating lenses.

Like other members have said, good glass is just good glass. It's better to get the shot you wanted to get now than to wait.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

I've not used the 200mm F4, but I love my 105mm F2.8

The one gotcha on the 105mm is that it changes focal length (or at least angle of view) as you move closer to an object. This makes tight framing a bit of a chore. I just hold down the shutter button in continuous autofocus mode and move back and forth until I get the result that i want.

The added benefit of the 105mm is that you also have a very nice VR lens for portrait work hand held (note, the VR is useless for shooting macro).

For dedicated macro work, the 200mm F4 is probably the best choice, especially if you are going to need some extra working distance. Shooting 1:1 at F2.8 yeilds a ridiculously shallow depth of field, so you will not miss the extra stops of aperture.

For more general purpose work, I think the 105mm is a much better value, but it really depends on your shooting style.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

I almost forgot:

DX vs. FX - DX in macro work is kind of a pain. If you are shooting 1:1 then you are shooting something pretty tiny (think the size of your cropped sensor). 1:1 on FX is still pretty tiny, but at least you have a bigger viewfinder to frame everything on. I expect to get better macro results when I get around to buying a FX camera.

Posted 3 years ago #
Panamon_Creel

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 95
offline

Willis said:
The one gotcha on the 105mm is that it changes focal length (or at least angle of view) as you move closer to an object. This makes tight framing a bit of a chore.

Even more of a chore if you're trying to frame for focus stacking ;)
I think the 200 f/4 has similar issues of focus breathing due to the IF design.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I find all three macros have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantage I find in having all three is that each provides a different perspective. I tend to like the perspective provided by longer focal lengths and also use my 70-300 VR at it's closest focus at 300mm (1:4) and my 500/8 reflex in the same manner (1:2.5). If I could only have one macro it would be the 105/2.8. If I could only have two, I'd use the 200/4 and the 60/2.8. I prefer shooting DX, but would like the 100% viewfinder coverage of the D300s rather than my D90. I wouldn't, however, expect the images to be any better.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

LOL Panamon... I hadn't thought of that.

Posted 3 years ago #
qwerty

member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 12
offline

After reading on these suggestion.
I have decided to wait till mid feb until the next set of rumors turn to a possible fact and then chase the 200 f4 micro.

by the way i heard that 135 F2 defocus is also being phased out.
What do you guys make of that lens.
Good for now or wait until tomorrow?

Posted 3 years ago #