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

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]