Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


- - - - -

Thinking of getting the 200mm f/4 micro


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_antares_*

Guest_antares_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 August 2006 - 02:21

I know its an awesome lens and more in the line of what I like doing right now. Now saying that, I have the 180mm f/2.8, I know its not a micro. Would there be to much conflict between these 2 lenses, being that they are more or less in the same range? If so, should I look at the Sigma 150mm macro? I'd rather stick with Nikon though... Any help would be greatly appreciated!

#2 ckdamascus

ckdamascus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 03:33

I know its an awesome lens and more in the line of what I like doing right now.
Now saying that, I have the 180mm f/2.8, I know its not a micro.
Would there be to much conflict between these 2 lenses, being that they are
more or less in the same range? If so, should I look at the Sigma 150mm macro?
I'd rather stick with Nikon though...
Any help would be greatly appreciated!


They are two different lenses for different purposes. A 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Sigma has more magnification than a 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor VR so the Sigma is more suited for macro photography (not counting add-ons you can buy such as the Canon 500D close up lens).

The 200mm f/4 Micro Nikkor (macro) can get close to 1:1 reproduction ratio and the 180mm f/2.8 1:6.6. The 200mm f/4 is vastly superior for macro photography compared to the 180mm f/2.8. For shallow DoF shots though the 180mm prime is a much better lens.

Every lens has a different purpose, so I see no overlap in those two choices. You have to decide what kind of photography suits your preference and style. Macro takes a lot of patience!

#3 cameraguy21773

cameraguy21773

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 49 posts
  • LocationFrederick, Maryland USA

Posted 18 August 2006 - 10:01

I know its an awesome lens and more in the line of what I like doing right now.
Now saying that, I have the 180mm f/2.8, I know its not a micro.
Would there be to much conflict between these 2 lenses, being that they are
more or less in the same range? If so, should I look at the Sigma 150mm macro?
I'd rather stick with Nikon though...
Any help would be greatly appreciated!


I buy macro lenses because they are macro lenses and not because I expect to use them for general photography. If I can then that is a nice bonus but it's really the macro performance I want and you said the same thing in your post. That said, if I were going to buy a macro lens today, the only two I'd consider are the AF Nikkor 200/4 and the Sigma EX 150/2.8. Either of these is as good as the best macro I've ever used (the Pentax SMC A* 200/4) and worthy of your $$$. The Sigma is a superb telephoto as well. It also performs brilliantly with a Sigma EX TC 1.4. The Nikkor 200/4 is legendary and doesn't need any additional superlatives from me; I'd just caution you not to be too much of a "Nikon snob" here. Many Nikon users are convinced they have to shoot only Nikkors and won't consider other brands. That's a mistake, especially with macro lenses. I have the 180/2.8 too and even with a high quality diopter on it, it is not nearly as satisfying to use as a good macro. I also have the Sigma 150 which I chose over the Nikkor 200/4. It's not better as a picture taker but it is so good that, as an overall package (ergonomics, handling, fit and finish, etc.), it's tough to beat. Still, I keep the 200/4 on my short list.
regards
Mike Parker
Frederick, Maryland

Take Only Pictures, Leave Only Footprints
--------------------------------------------
D2H | D1x (x2) | D70
Sigma EX 12-24/4.5-5.6 | Sigma EX 24-60/2.8 | AF-S Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5 | Sigma EX 28/1.8 | Sigma EX 50/2.8 Macro | AF Nikkor 105/2DC | Sigma EX 150/2.8 Macro | AF Nikkor 180/2.8D | AF Nikkor 300/2.8 | Sigma 400/5.6 Telemacro

#4 Tosh

Tosh

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 83 posts
  • LocationNew York
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 18 August 2006 - 12:49

Hi Victor, Being solidly in the "buy 'n try camp", I'd say go ahead and get the 200 micro. If closeup photography is what you're currently into, then why not try a legend in the area? Besides I can almost smell the smoke from the 300mm proceeds that are burning a hole in your pocket. :smile: If you buy a used 200 micro and it doesn't seem like a good fit, you can pretty much sell it for what you paid yourself
Glenn

Nikon DSLR, Olympus M4/3, Some Extremely Nice Glass and Half a Clue. ( ^_^)

#5 Guest_antares_*

Guest_antares_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 August 2006 - 17:01

Hello Glenn, The whole idea behind selling the 300 was to get a better macro lens, I was undecided on the Sigma 150 and the Nikon 200mm. Well I ended up getting the 200mm, arrives monday, can't wait to get it in my hands!! Thanks for the help guys!! If you see my tag, I do have sigma glass...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.