There is the AF 200mmf/4.0D MACRO and the AF-S 40mm f/2.8G DX Micro, their price difference is over 1000$, but what is their difference in real life? If i want to take a few pics say of jewelry using macro shooting what will i see?
whats the difference in these 2 lens?
(30 posts) (16 voices)-
on the 40mm, you'll see your camera almost hitting the jewelry.
1:1 is 1:1, but the distance from the subject that the lens needs to be to achieve this is hugely greater on the 200mm vs the 40mm.
the working distance on the 200mm is 260mm (10.2") at 1:1
while the 40mm is 35mm (1.3") at 1:1!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well before this post I hadn't heard of the 200 F4, but the obvious difference as Gareth points out is working distance. If you really don't think you are going to do that much macro then the 200 F4 seems like an expensive lens for you. I have found that all the Nikon macro lenses are sharp. Some might be a little sharper than others, but look through the photo a day pictures and the macro shots. My 105 F2.8 is extremely sharp.
The 40 F2.8 is a faster lens...F2.8 Vs F4. The 40 F2.8 is cheaper. The 40 can double as a portrait lens and or a mid/everyday range lens. The 200 would be telephoto obviously and could be used for some wildlife and stuff, but it is a little slower lens so low light ability might be a problem.
Have you thought about any of the other macro lenses? If you don't need a 200 mm lens then the 105 F2.8 VR is a great one (and from what I can tell half the price of the 200 F4) and I have also heard good things about the 60 F2.8 and 85 F3.5. If you don't have lenses in these ranges I would suggest finding out which range you would like the lens to double in...IE for your macro work and when not doing macro what range you would shoot it as a normal lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sound advice from Gareth and tcole. One reason why people splash out for the 200 is the luxury of the extra working distance when shooting insects, vermin, and other critters that move. If you're going to be shooting stationary pieces, like jewelry, that extra distance is less crucial.
tcole's idea about getting double the bang for your buck is a slick one.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The only practical issue will be lighting your subject. You don't have to worry about an insect flying away because your lens is too close. But you do have to worry about the close camera/lens blocking the light falling on your subject. If you are fine with flash (maybe a ring flash?) and sidelighting from off camera flashes or reflectors or you are willing to put your camera on a tripod to allow for long shutter speeds, you should be fine with the 40mm DX lens.
If you are going to take close up photos of jewelry I would suggest using a light box.
*LINKS REMOVED*
Posted 1 year ago # -
You dont really need the 200 for jewelry, the 200 tends to be used for photographing bugs
I would look at 105mm macro
Posted 1 year ago # -
Plus 1 for the 105 micro. The detail it's able to resolve is astounding.
Posted 1 year ago # -
As the others have mentioned, working distance is a big issue, not only to allow you keep your distance from stinging insects and animals, but more importantly to allow you to have more freedom to move your lights in.
Other differences is the better build quality (all metal lens with a tripod collar and aperture ring), coverage on FX, and the fact that in general that long lenses tend to be more expensive than near normal lenses.
For jewelry, I would go with something longer than 40, since you won't have room for your lights. Generally anything 90mm or longer will work well (including 3rd party lenses, which tend to be on par with 1st party ones), and even old lenses will work very well. If you are only doing this occasionally, I would try to avoid spending too much money on a specialized macro lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
you don't want any of these for jewelry, you want a pc.
Nikon PC-E Micro Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED or Nikon PC-E Micro Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D.
they are manual focus (you need to do this anyway), they are only 1:2, BUT they are the only way you will get a whole ring in focus at 1:2 using a nikon camera. If you are professional, you will know clients ALWAYS want the whole piece in focus.
You also have to manually open and close the diaphram unless you have a D300 or higher, and the lens will bump into your camera unless you have a D3 (or, I assume a D4).
your other options if you don't have a D3/4 are;
*buy a view camera and a digital back (lol, you might want to have a look how much these cost)
*buy into canon, their tilt/shift system is arguably better, and is cheaper.
*buy the new D800, shoot at a much lesser magnification with a standard macro lens and crop the hell out of it.Posted 1 year ago # -
If the camera you use has a screw drive (D90, D7000, and up) there's also the option of using the old 105mm f/2.8D macro lens, or the Tokina 100mm f/2.8D. The Tokina's been great to me, and I don't find the need for VR in such a lens. One thing I especially like about that lens is the focus clutch... if I have that pushed forward for autofocus, and have the autofocus turned off on the camera body there is no way for me to change the focus short of physically tugging on the inner lens barrel.
I can get enough light on the subject when shooting at 1:1 with my SB-700 on-camera angled slightly down with the built-in diffuser in place. I'll also use my old Sunpax flash turned toward wherever I'm holding the SB-700 off-camera if I want to play with the light a bit more.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"*buy the new D800, shoot at a much lesser magnification with a standard macro lens and crop the hell out of it. "
IIRC the D800 will have slightly larger photosites than the D7000, so this is not the reason for one to drop the money on that camera if they don't need it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
zoran said:
There is the AF 200mmf/4.0D MACRO and the AF-S 40mm f/2.8G DX Micro, their price difference is over 1000$, but what is their difference in real life? If i want to take a few pics say of jewelry using macro shooting what will i see?Let Youtube videos be your friend.
When using a Macro lens...your setup will have a huge impact on how the photo turns out. I personally have the Micro 105 2.8...very fast, very sharp, has VR and great for portrays as well (the bokeh is awesome). If I want to get more than 105mm, I just attaché my 1.7x teleconverter and I'm good to go.
Have not used it for shooting rings, but those that have, their results have been very acceptable to me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Taking macro images is always a battle with DOF and the closer you are the less the DOF I use a 200 F4 mainly due to distance to subject being further away. and allowing more light to the subject.
If you want the Rolls /Royce of macro lenses look at the Schneider 90 PC lens, but you will need deep pockets to buy that onePosted 1 year ago # -
I have the 105 f/2.8 in the house and the 200 f/4 in my bag and after using both, I don't have a favorite because they are both fantastic lenses. What the 105 lacks in working distance, it makes up for in versatility and value for money. When doing macro, I prefer to use the 200 because I find it friendly for manual focus (great, big, smooth focus ring) and working distance is handy, especially when you throw 3 Kenko extension tubes on it. That said, you can use the new TCE-20eIII on the 105 but not on the 200. So the 105 is potentially more crazy.
I guess what I'm trying to say is when it comes to macro, more $$ does not necessarily guarantee better results because it comes down to what you're trying to photograph more so than 'pixel quality'. They are all great lenses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wow many very very interesting views on the matter, thanx guys you ve been very helpful
let me just say that jewelry perhaps is one of the things i want to shoot, fact is that i have never done any macro photography and now ive decided to enter this field, so apart from jewelry i want to do other subjects too, so in this all around shooting what lens would you suggest for me?and Gareth you really did make me stop and think more on the PC lens you suggest i should use! So for my non professional macro shooting you think i will not need any of the AF or VR abilities that new lens have? Did i get it right?
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
I don't think you will want or need the PC-E lens. I think any of them (40, 60, 85, 105) will double nicely as a portrait lens. I have shot some portraits with the 105 and it does a great job. Really look at the picture a day thread. Rifqi shoots the 85 F3.5, many people shoot the 105, SquamishPhoto shoots the 45 PC-E. Really any of them are good. The PC-E micro lenses are manual focus and sound a bit complex personally. Also if you wanted to use them for other shooting besides macro I think they are probably the worst choice, although Squamish shoots his for everything and they seem to turn out great. The PC-E lenses are very expensive as well. To start off I think any of the other options are better choices. You don't need the PC-E lenses for good results...really. Rifqi's pictures are shot with a D3000 and the 85 F3.5 and they look great.
If you want a fairly inexpensive lens you might try the 40 to start out with. If you don't have the 35 F1.8 then the 40 also might make sense. Read reviews and check out the pictures on Amazon for each lens. I don't think you would be disappointed with any lens listed here http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/CloseUp-Macro/index.page
There are even many third party macro lenses. I am not sure I would mess with them just because Nikon has lots of options in just about every price range and they are all fantastic.
Posted 1 year ago # -
zoran said:
and Gareth you really did make me stop and think more on the PC lens you suggest i should use! So for my non professional macro shooting you think i will not need any of the AF or VR abilities that new lens have? Did i get it right?there are a few questions here:
1. how much do you want to spend?
2. do you have other lenses already?People have made comments, but they don't know much about shooting rings, and this is the only piece of info you have really given us.
If you want to shoot jewelry, and you want it to be sharp from the back to the front, you WILL need a PC.
If you are just casual and are looking for a more versatile lens, then, like others, I suggest the 105. I have it and it is great. It also works well with my TC-20EIII, and is a good portrait lens.
tips on macro shooting jewelry;
1st: Put you jewelry on a table and your camera on a tripod.
2nd: Set your magnification (focus on the lens ring).
3rd: Using (tripod) live view adjust your object and camera position until subject is in focus (having a macro focussing rail is a VERY useful tool).
4th: Set your aperture to the highest you can get without diffraction (opinions differ on this, but lets say f8-f16).
5th: Light your subject and compose.You wont need AF or VR for this, AF is completely useless with the higher macro magnifications and is only useful when the subject is fairly far away and likely to move.
VR is for taking pics without a tripod, which you will have to use, so you wont need. You will most likely need good light or a long exposure.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
Another lens that would be an excellent multi-role 1:1 macro lens if you plan to stay with crop sensors is the Tamron 60mm f/2... I almost bought this one to use in place of my 50mm f/1.8 as a walkaround + macro lens. Hear plenty of praise for this lens; I just didn't buy it since I'm trying to avoid getting more DX lenses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gareth said:
1. how much do you want to spend?
2. do you have other lenses already?1. not more than 700
2. none macro lensesGareth said:If you want to shoot jewelry, and you want it to be sharp from the back to the front, you WILL need a PC.
If you are just casual and are looking for a more versatile lens, then, like others, I suggest the 105. I have it and it is great. It also works well with my TC-20EIII, and is a good portrait lenmaybe im casual yes, im not a pro
Posted 1 year ago # -
Try looking for a used copy of the 105VR if your budget can't go past $700.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You'd be happier with the VR version and you won't be able to find a new non-VR 105 anyway since they don't make them anymore.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
