105/2.8 MC or 200/4 Micro?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
labalaba Contributing Member • Posts: 969
Re: 105/2.8 MC or 200/4 Micro? 300PF?

BasilG wrote:

skyrunr wrote:

Anytime I question z-mount over f-mount I'm going with Z-mount. LOL

How about a 300PF with Kenko tubes for half the price, a bit lighter, and a lot less bulk? I just tested this and it seems pretty decent. I tried it on a monopod, it works well, but I need a lot more practice.

  • The 10mm ring alone had a pretty decent working range around 5' to 40'
  • With both extensions (26mm) the minimum focus was around 3'-20'
  • Once in a while the camera switches to MF for some reason, but this was much worse on my Z6II

I'm really glad I tried this out, thanks for posting this question!

Yes, that's an interesting option. I currently have 70 mm worth of Nikon tubes and a 400/5.6 prime that I can use this way, but I did think about replacing that setup with the lighter lens (and new tubes because the Nikon ones have no CPU contacts). Of course I could also get a used 300/4 AF-S D plus the 105/2.8 MC and have the best of both worlds, but I'm not sure I can justify the cost of that adventure.

The connected tubes eg Kenko will cause hard vignetting on FX with the 300/4 AF-S.  I think the Nikon tubes are wider, but have not used them.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow