Macro/Long Telephoto

Hey everybody,

I am trying to decide on a longer telephoto macro lens for my D750. I am planning to use it for macro wildlife, but also want to take advantage of the large aperture for bokehlicious portraits. I currently own the 24-120mm f4, so ideally I would have a focal length longer than that to avoid crossover.

I had originally narrowed in on the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO ($1099), but I am nervous due to the multiple reviews about OS failure and having to get it replaced. Those reviews tend to be a few years old, so I dont know if they have corrected that issue since then. I also looked at what I consider the less ideal, but the safer choices, in the AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED ($899) and the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X ($379). While browsing B&H I also came across an open box AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED ($1299), which would definitely meet my focal length goals. It is an older lens though and I am concerned about the auto focus and how it would handle in portrait scenarios.

Basically, this is a pretty big purchase for me and am looking for some reassurance. Besides the 105, my local stores dont carry any of the other longer macro lenses, so I cant really go test them out personally. Any advice welcome! Thanks

The 200mm AF-D micro reviews well optically really good, dunno about its AF. The 105 VR G micro is a really nice lens, but it isn't stellar - colour fringing IIRC - though mine gives no cause for complaint.

The 70-200 f4 gets to 1:3.65 so if that is macro enough (yes, I know what macro really means) that is a jolly nice lens and hits all your other needs. Sorry to add another choice.

--
Andrew Skinner

Oh and ps: A large aperture doesn't mean bokehlicious, it means limited depth of field. Bokeh is about the nature of the rendering of the out of focus bits, which is more idiosyncratic and difficult to predict from the crude aspects of lens design. I tend to think bokehlicious is a term used by people who are not sure what they are after.

MDog

I have a D750, with a Sigma 150 2.8 non OS.

One thing I can say about this lens, "It's heavy"

So I looked around and got the new Tamron 90mm 2.8 Version F017.

It's an impressive little lens for the cost. I love it

I have the 105 f/2.8 VR--I have an early copy--mine was made in Japan. These lenses are now manufactured in China.

I've had that 200 f/4 D micro on my "wish list" for years. It's been staying there because I know it will see limited use, though I do now have a really good monopod and tripod with heads, plates and clamps from Really Right Stuff, so maybe I should be moving that lens to my shopping cart.

Still and all, my 105 has never made me question that purchase. (It does hunt for focus in low contrast situations, though. Most people who shoot macro use manual focus anyway and just move back and forth.) I also have the 60D micro and a rubber hood, which is useful in aquariums, though I also like that 60 for regular stuff--I got it used and cheap on eBay, and it's one of my favorite lenses!

The 105 is cheaper and easier to handle. The 200D is a gorgeous lens though and highly revered. Expensive, heavier and you'd probably need a monopod for it the field, because no VR. 105 has VR.

Also where are you finding the Nikon 200mm f/4 D for that price? Around here it's $1800

NikonJunkieGirl said:

Also where are you finding the Nikon 200mm f/4 D for that price? Around here it's $1800

Click to expand...

mdog3000 said:

NikonJunkieGirl said:

Also where are you finding the Nikon 200mm f/4 D for that price? Around here it's $1800

Click to expand...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1218953-DEMO/nikon_1989_af_micro_nikkor_200mm_f_4d.html

Click to expand...

That is a pretty deep discount for Open Box. I would not trust it.

pretty much all macro lenses have slower autofocus than comparable non-macro lenses. That comes with the territory. Currently I own the Nikon 55/2.8 Ais, 105VR and 200f4 micronikkors. When I did the comparison nearly 10 years ago the 105VR had the best AF of any ~100mm macro lens that I tried, although it is nowhere near as fast as a non-macro AFS lens would be. This AF speed is one of the reasons I selected Nikon as a digital system. I handled the Sigma 150 at that time and my impression was that its AF was slow. The Sigma 150 OS had not been released and may be better, I don't know as I have never used it. The only macro lens I have handled that focuses rapidly is the AFS 60/2.8 G, which is pretty snappy. The 200f4 micronikkor is an excellent lens but its AF is going to seem painfully slow for any moving subject. Portrait and landscape will be doable. I have used this lens for long range candid portraits when it happens to have been on the camera already and it is not bad at all but I would not choose this lens for that use. It is large, slow, and there are better alternatives. My 180/4 apo-lanthar is a fraction of the size and a nice portrait lens. Plenty of people like the Nikon 180/2.8. I am not sure I can give you a clear recommendation, perhaps you are hoping for too much from one lens. The 105VR may be the longest macro lens that can really substitute as a general telephoto but on FX it is not that long and overlaps with what you have already. Have you considered the non-OS Sigma and resigning yourself to slow AF? As a telephoto though, 150mm is not much longer than 120mm, will you really carry both these lenses? BTW if that is a new 200mm f4 Nikon that is a good price but I am not sure you want that lens. For macro, outstanding, for other wildlife, you may be frustrated.

My field closeup stuff is plant life, so macro with a long focal length hasn't been my thing. My 70-200 f4 VR gets used for landscapes (sorry, scenery). Depending on what the OP wants the 70-200 f4 with a short extension tube or a good close up lens on the front filter.

--
Andrew Skinner

I have had the 200mm micro Nikkor Afd f/4 lens for six years, and it is fairly heavy, and not the fastest lens, but it does take some very nice images. It is handy when you need the extra range so you don't spook the insect. Made in japan with excellent build quality, It has never been a bargain lens. Six years ago I paid $1200 used, like new condition.

I have the Nikkor 105mm VR lens, but I out shoot this lens with my Nikkor 105 Ais version. Last Summer I picked up the Tokina AT-X Pro Macro 105mm f/2.8 lens. Since then I haven't used the Nikkor 105mm VR lens. This particular Tokina sells for less than $400, and has excellent color renditon, and besides being a fine macro lens, it is also a very good portrait lens, or general lens. This lens is also made in Japan and has good weight for its size, with very good build quality.

Michigan Sandman said:

Last Summer I picked up the Tokina AT-X Pro Macro 105mm f/2.8 lens. Since then I haven't used the Nikkor 105mm VR lens. This particular Tokina sells for less than $400, and has excellent color renditon, and besides being a fine macro lens, it is also a very good portrait lens, or general lens. This lens is also made in Japan and has good weight for its size, with very good build quality.

Click to expand...

OP particularly mentions AF speed. How is the Tokina in this regard, for example compared to the 105VR?

The AF speed seems to be at least as fast as the 105VR, possibly faster. With the colors I get from the Tokina I haven't picked up the 105VR since last July.

r

Go to the Lenstip website and read up about the Sigma 180mm OS Macro, that lens may tick all of your boxes

I've not found a decline that was photographically significant.

I have a 60 AF-S, Sigma 105 AF-D, and the Sigma 180mm f3.5 macro AF-S. The last is shown here. Discontinued for several years, you can buy a nice used copy for $300 to $400. The focus is slow, but the image quality always pleases my eye. Hand-holding isn't recommended, so the included collar is appreciated.

There are a few of us on this board who are big fans of this lens. Since budget is tight, you might want to consider it. It's a large lens, but I never regret using it.































--
Eric

Those photos say the focal length was 185mm. You said you shot them with a D700 and a 180 sigma... why are they 185?

NikonJunkieGirl said:

Those photos say the focal length was 185mm. You said you shot them with a D700 and a 180 sigma... why are they 185?

Click to expand...

The EXIF has always shown it that way. No idea beyond.