Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Does anyone have either experience or good information on the usefulness of the Nikon 200mm f/4.0D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor Lens for field photography? I've read that a good macro lens can add a lot of flexibility to setting up a good shot. I've also read that a long focal length may make it impossible to get a shot without either the stability of a tripod or the extremely fast shutter settings associated with flash photography.

Thanks
John

I don't know this particular lens, although the ED Nikon lenses obviously have a good reputation, on par with the Canon L, Minolta G, etc. series lenses. So quality of glass isn't an issue.

My only concern about this as a field lens would be its length. If you are using it on a film body, that might be OK, but if you are using on a digital body, it will have the field of view of a 300mm lens. That will require you to be a fair distance from your subject. For a basking lizard or a venomous snake closeup, that is great, but for a whole body shot of an animal, you may find that distance makes it difficult to control the animal.

I use a 90mm macro lens (effective FOV on digital body = 135mm). I find that is about perfect. I can get close enough to get good face shots or take small frogs, but I can be far enough away to get decent head shots of venomous species. I think a macro lens in the 90-105mm is a better (and cheaper) choice on a digital SLR.

I also own a 180mm macro and I almost never use it. If I need more length (flighty animals, etc) I use a longer lens that isn't a macro specialized lens, like a 300 f/4 or even a good 70-210 zoom.

For example, for less money than the 200 macro, you could buy the excellent Nikkor 300 f/4 ED-IF which goes down to 1:3.7. This means you could fill the frame with an object approximately 3.3 inches wide from 4.8 feet away, but have a much more versatile telephoto lens for other wildlife. It also comes in black or gray, which is nice because I HATE white/gray lenses because often they draw a lot of attention from people. I have a white () Minolta 300 f/4 G which is probably my second most used lens (behind my 90mm macro).

I am not trying to talk you out of the 200 macro, just suggesting that it won't be that useful for herp photography except for at a distance, and in that case, why not spend less money and get the more versitile 300mm lens? If you already have a good telephoto and a shorter macro, then the 200 is a good lens to own, but I would get the other two lengths first.

If you decide to look at 90-105 range macros, you might be aware that the Nikkor 105 doesn't score as well as some of the "off-brands" in regard to overall sharpness. Both the Sigma 105 macro and Tamron 90 Di Macro score higher and are several hundred dollars cheaper. Mind you, the Nikkor is a VERY sharp lens, it is just that the Tamron and Sigma lenses are a tiny bit sharper and several hundred dollars cheaper which makes you wonder why you would shell out the extra $$$.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

If you really want to look at longer macros, you might consider the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX HSM Macro. It is higher rated in sharpness (photodo.com) than the Nikkor 105 or Nikkor 200 and is a little shorter than the 200. It is also faster (f/2.8) than the Nikkor 200 and has HSM which means faster and quieter focusing. And it runs around $600, half (or less) of the price of the Nikon. So it is cheaper, faster, and outscores the Nikkor 200 in photodo's sharpness tests.

I have a couple of the Sigma EX series lenses and they are great. Older and cheaper sigma lenses may have had problems, but the EX series are first class glass and they are built like tanks!

Sigma also makes a 180mm EX macro in the Nikon mount that has HSM as well.

Of course, the Nikkor 105mm Macro with VR is very tempting as well, if you don't already have a lens in that range. I have an image stabilized body and I can assure you image stabilization (or vibration resistance, in Nikon terms) gives you more keeper macro shots.

Sorry about all the conflicting thoughts, but one of the benefits of the Nikon system is that you have a lot of good choices through N and third party lens manufacturers.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

That's exactly the feedback I needed. Sometimes the "more is better" approach doesn't apply. I'll read over your info and use it to weigh my options for DSLR lens choices. It's invaluable to get experienced advice.
Best regards
John

>>If you really want to look at longer macros, you might consider the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX HSM Macro. It is higher rated in sharpness (photodo.com) than the Nikkor 105 or Nikkor 200 and is a little shorter than the 200. It is also faster (f/2.8) than the Nikkor 200 and has HSM which means faster and quieter focusing. And it runs around $600, half (or less) of the price of the Nikon. So it is cheaper, faster, and outscores the Nikkor 200 in photodo's sharpness tests.
>>
>>I have a couple of the Sigma EX series lenses and they are great. Older and cheaper sigma lenses may have had problems, but the EX series are first class glass and they are built like tanks!
>>
>>Sigma also makes a 180mm EX macro in the Nikon mount that has HSM as well.
>>
>>Of course, the Nikkor 105mm Macro with VR is very tempting as well, if you don't already have a lens in that range. I have an image stabilized body and I can assure you image stabilization (or vibration resistance, in Nikon terms) gives you more keeper macro shots.
>>
>>Sorry about all the conflicting thoughts, but one of the benefits of the Nikon system is that you have a lot of good choices through N and third party lens manufacturers.
>>-----
>>Chris Harrison
>>San Antonio, Texas