Micro this or micro that?

[David H. Hartman]

I feel a need to protest the photo at Photozone.de. To me its a no brainer, you take the hood off when moving in close.

A useful feature of a telephoto lens is the narrow background and the ability to move one's point of view to select a background that's not distracting. The AF-S 40/2.8G Micro will include a fairly wide background and though out of focus items in the background will be quite recognizable and potentially distracting. I remember this from my first film SLR lens, a 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor-P. Sometimes I'd have to give up on a subject because of an ugly background. The picture in my mind is trying to photograph a rose with unappealing bare dirt in the background. A 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor cured that problem nicely. The 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor is a 2.6x longer focal length so background selection on a DX camera will be much easier. Also the 105/4.0 offers a 26.3mm aperture v. a 14.3mm aperture for the 40/2.8 so background blurring will be better and an aid obscuring a potentially distracting background. I feel the 105/4.0 micro wins in the field. In a studio situation the background can be chosen for subjects such as food or jewelry. The working distance and therefore the perspective is a choice if you own several micro-Nikkors. In this case if the choice is either or then the type of subjects to be photograph should play a roll in that choice.

Now about extension tubes v. lenses that focus to 1:1 on their own. The latter will have to throw out a lot of free working distance to get to 1:1. I consider using a PN-11 extension tube with my 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor an advantage as that lens gives the most free working distance of any other 105mm Micro-Nikkor. The PN-11 tube is out of production and prices aren't cheap anymore but if one is on a tight budget the Nikon M2 tube can be bought for a song. A pair of M2 tubes will offer 1:0.98 or 1.02x life size.

The 105/4.0 will also offer a medium telephoto lens on a DX camera with the angle of view of a 160mm lens on FX. I still like the 55/3.5, 2.8 and 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkors as general purpose normal lenses for daylight hours so I'm sure I'd like the 40/2.8 Micro-Nikkor on DX.

I've just tossed out some ideas as without knowing what subjects Ana will be photographing I don't feel I can make a specific recommendation.

I hope this helps,

Dave

---

I took the focus "lock" off my 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor almost immediately. It really did not lock the lens and it used a metal on metal approach that did not impress me. I covered the holes with Dymo lable tape and saved the parts. I'll be buried with my 105mm Micro-Nikkors so that wasn't really necessary.

Dave

[Akira]

I feel a need to protest the photo at Photozone.de. To me its a no brainer, you take the hood off when moving in close.

Dave, the inner barrel of 40/2.8 protrudes from the outer barrel when you focus at 1:1, so taking the hood off doesn't really extend the working distance.  Maybe around 1cm of gain.

[ArendV]

Indeed, even without hood the working distance is very short, 35mm to be precise at 1:1



I also quickly checked the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 AIS and it has a whopping 27cm working distance at 1:2.
With the 52.5mm extension ring PN-11 that is reduced to 16cm at 1:1.
But you get a pretty dim viewfinder for manual focusing with the extension ring.

And it is actually Ana asking the question (not me) and knows what she will use it for.
For insects I would prefer the 105mm, for extra magnification on non moving subjects the 40mm.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

My favourite for larger insects such as butterflies always has been the 200/4 AIS Micro-Nikkor. Extremely smooth focusing and the longest working distance of them all (approx. 0.5 m at 1:2).

[ArendV]

Bjørn, as you rightfully said before Ana has the choice between the 105/4 and 40/2.8, hence my advise.

Personally I use the Sigma 150/2.8 or the Nikkor 300/4 with extension ring or converter to photograph large insects.
With the PN11 and the 300/4D AFS I get to 1:2 at 75cm working distance :-)

[Bjørn Rørslett]

With a 2000 mm f/11 Reflex-Nikkor and 2 m of extension you can get 1:1 at 4 m. Or thereabouts.

(the discussion centered on Micro-Nikkors)

[pluton]

I always recommend the 40mm DX lens for general purpose plus close-up use.  It's more useful for general photo use than a lens that's going to have a narrow angle, telephoto effect.

[John Koerner]

I always recommend the 40mm DX lens for general purpose plus close-up use.  It's more useful for general photo use than a lens that's going to have a narrow angle, telephoto effect.

Not for nature photography ...

If the desire is to take wildlife photos, it's the 40mm which is next to useless within this context.

A telephoto macro lens (I agree with Bjørn) is the preferred choice.

In that capacity, I think the newer Sigma 180mm is a better choice than the Nikkor 200mm, overall. The two are comparable image-quality and range-wise.

However, if you ever need the IS, and a faster AF, the Sigma excels here ... whereas the elder Nikkor doesn't have them.

I did a review on macro lenses for wildlife field photography.

Jack

PS: If you're into extreme macro, with the use of flash, then the ratings would be different. This article assumes the reader is actually out in the field, under varying conditions, trying to capture a natural image, with available light, as opposed to shooting photos of flowers (or garden subjects), in controlled settings, such as in his backyard or home studio.

[John Koerner]

My favourite for larger insects such as butterflies always has been the 200/4 AIS Micro-Nikkor. Extremely smooth focusing and the longest working distance of them all (approx. 0.5 m at 1:2).

Bjørn, I am curious how you would compare the 200/4 AIS Micro-Nikkor to the Voigtländer125mm f/2.5.

I know you have the latter, and am curious if you've ever compared it to the Nikkor 200mm.

Jack

.

[John Koerner]

Personally I use the Sigma 150/2.8 or the Nikkor 300/4 with extension ring or converter to photograph large insects.
With the PN11 and the 300/4D AFS I get to 1:2 at 75cm working distance :-)

We agree.

The Sigma 180 f/2.8 is a better lens than the Sigma 150 f/2.8, but they are similar.

Nonetheless, I recently got rid of my Sigma 180 f/2.8 in favor of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II as a field lens (better stats than any macro lens on the planet + can be converted to 1:2, as you said, by slapping on an extension tube, still retaining excellent stats).

For 1:1, I became intrigued by the Voigtländer 125mm f2.5 Apo-Lanthar, thanks to Michael Erlewine, and am enjoying this for static 1:1 macro shooting, where quick-action isn't called for, but where I can take my time and compose the shot.

For beyond 1:1, I am now reversing some "old school" Nikkor lenses (50mm, 35mm, 28mm, and 20mm), for 1.1x, 1.8x, 2.1x, and 3.4x macro shots, respectively, but these are for tiny subjects that don't move, as the focus distance with reverse-lens shooting is minuscule.

[ArendV]

Nonetheless, I recently got rid of my Sigma 180 f/2.8 in favor of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II as a field lens (better stats than any macro lens on the planet + can be converted to 1:2, as you said, by slapping on an extension tube, still retaining excellent stats).

I would question that swap.
You will need significant more extension to get your 300/2.8VR (MFD 2.2m - 0.16x) to 1:2 vs. my 300/4 (MFD 1.45m - 0.27x), if you ever reach it at all.

In any case I hope Ana is not discouraged to react to some advise here after all the masculine gear show off.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A true telephoto optical design respond poorer to added extension. Besides, the change in effective aperture as you focus closer, will be more dramatic with these optics.

[Asle F]

And the micro-Nikkor 105mm/4 is not a telephoto design.

Myself prefer a short focal length for most of my closup works. The different 55mm micro -Nikkors are my favorites to about 1:2 as also are the limits for them without extension tubes, then the short working distances are of no trouble. From 1:2 to 1:1, I prefer longer focal length where 105mm works well for me.

[Billie Jean]

Hello again!

Boys, I'm really happy that all of you tried to help me! I was following your comments with pure joy (even though I didn't really understand everything ). Thank you very much for your time and shared knowledge and experience!

Now, I have an obligation to choose well, but reading your advices and critiques, I realised that the best decision is to make an effort to gain both of lenses (not really modest, right? )

In any case, I hope you will see products of that decision on this forum

Greetings!

[Chip Chipowski]

Billie Jean - sometimes all of the above is the right answer