105 Macro VR or 200mm Macro

Aside from the zoom range, what are the pros and cons of these two lenses for Macro work? I am tempted by the VR capabilities but have no experience with either lens.

I have the 200mm Micro and know absolutely nothing about the 105 Macro VR. I always use a tripod with the 200 since slow shutter speeds are a fact of life to get any kind of depth of field. From what I understand the VR function is not of much use for a tripod mounted lens since it is pretty much rock solid anyway. Perhaps the addition of the VR function to the 105 is to allow handholding while shooting macro. Just a guess.

Aside from the zoom range, what are the pros and cons of these two
lenses for Macro work? I am tempted by the VR capabilities but have
no experience with either lens.

If this is your first macro lens, I would get the lens in the 100 mm range. IMHO It is the most universal focal length.

Cannot comment on the usefullness of VR for macro.

Harvey

(gallery at harvey.pr41.sk)

thank you that is very helpful. I like the hand held flower shots!

Livio Spallone wrote:

I have the 105 VR and a Tamron 90.

Frankly I am not impressed by the new lens :
bulkier and heavvier than any other 100 macro
VR and AFS not so useful in macro
internal focusing complicates optical scheme and reduces sharpness

My opinion : try it in macro shots before buying.

I think to change the 105 for a 85 f1.4 and keep the Tamron.
--
Lisper

Exactly as I have said in other posts - VR in a macro lens is useless.

With that said, I would get the 200mm or 105mm non VR. Don't waste your money on the VR lens.

fraserj1 wrote:

Livio Spallone wrote:

I have the 105 VR and a Tamron 90.

Frankly I am not impressed by the new lens :
bulkier and heavvier than any other 100 macro
VR and AFS not so useful in macro
internal focusing complicates optical scheme and reduces sharpness

My opinion : try it in macro shots before buying.

I think to change the 105 for a 85 f1.4 and keep the Tamron.
--
Lisper

Exactly as I have said in other posts - VR in a macro lens is useless.

With that said, I would get the 200mm or 105mm non VR. Don't waste
your money on the VR lens.

I find the AF-s and VR very useful for macro, I find both very helpful at macro distances. I would even go so far to say that I will never use a tripod again for macro work, the VR and af-s work that well.

Hi Dennis,

Read this http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html
and the lens reviews here http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

Ron Reznick & Bjørn Rørslett are my go-to sources for lens opinions.

I own the 60, 105 & 200 Micro's. IMHO if you only buy -one- micro, the 105 is your best choice due to it's flexibility. But, the 200 is optically without question the better lens, I believe among the best Nikkors ever produced.

Cheers,
JB

Dennis Shouldice wrote:

Aside from the zoom range, what are the pros and cons of these two
lenses for Macro work? I am tempted by the VR capabilities but have
no experience with either lens.

Dennis Shouldice wrote:

Aside from the zoom range, what are the pros and cons of these two
lenses for Macro work? I am tempted by the VR capabilities but have
no experience with either lens.

The 105VR only have two advantages over the 200mm: AF-S and VR. But in real macro work, AF-S is useless, you normally focus manually, and the VR does not help either, the lens is too close to the subject. The 200mm on the other hand gives you more working distance, and for me that is the determining factor. All this is assuming that you will be willing to spend for either one, but if you're on a budget or want to save money, then the 105VR is a bargain.....

Hope this helps

fraserj1 wrote:

Exactly as I have said in other posts - VR in a macro lens is useless.

The VR is definitely not useless -- even at 1:1 you get a significant boost with it on vs. with it off. That being said, you don't get nearly as much a boost as you do at longer distances. In fact, you get more hand-holdability by switching to the 60mm Micro because of the shorter focal length than you do by turning on the VR. Here is a thread with some tests I did on it...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=17935001

The AFS is definitely useful, shooting hand-held in AF-C to compensate for camera movement works pretty well.

All in all, if you want to shoot hand-held, get the 105 VR over the 200. If you plan on using a tripod most of the time, the 200 will probably be better because of the working distance.

The 105VR only have two advantages over the 200mm: AF-S and VR.

It depends on what you do. When you shoot not at 1:1 but for example larger flowers or mushrooms on the ground, then can be the working distance of 200mm too large, there is twice as much grass between you and the mushroom.

Harvey

The 105VR is not the a very sharp lens, according to the tests I have seen.
--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

Dennis Shouldice wrote:

Aside from the zoom range, what are the pros and cons of these two
lenses for Macro work? I am tempted by the VR capabilities but have
no experience with either lens.

Keep in mind I don't own either.

What do you consider macro? Handheld as well as you can do? Off of a tripod? Static objects only? Insects?

My experience with macro is limited to the Vivitar Series 1 90mm 2.5 (and I really haven't played with it as much as I'd like), a Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro, a Nikon 120mm f/4.5 (fixed apeture and 1:2 max) some old Nikon 55mm's (I've got one in the closet I should dig out and try with my D200 actually), and a pile of high speed lenses I've converted for various reproduction ratios.

I agree that anything over 100mm becomes really tough to handhold. Even at 60mm I'm usually shooting at 1600ISO and wide open to get useable shutter speeds even in decent light. Is that what you really want? I like abstract but most folks don't. The 200mm you are looking at with f/4 and considering the focal length I just can't imagine using handheld at anywhere near 1:1 even with a flash.

The 105mm seems interesting for the addition of VR although I still question it's usefullness for the type of macro and flower photography I like to do. AFS should be a non-issue. If someone finds AFS useful then they really aren't doing high magnification probably IMO.

Honestly I wouldn't choose either. Like others I've been generally unimpressed with the image samples I've seen of the 105mm VR. Additionally I hate tripods (although I do use when I absolutely have to) so for how steady I am anything over about 120mm (I'm slightly past my steadyness limit wide open with my Nikon 120mm at only 1:2 even!) is out of the question for what I want to do.

If I wasn't having to gear up for the wedding season I'd already have a Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Macro. For someone starting out I'd recommend either the Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro or Tamron 90mm 2.8. Do a search and you'll find some stunning image samples get posted regularly with folks using the Tamron. I do mean stunning in color, bokeh, contrast, you name it. I think I actually might have been served better with one myself over the Nikon 60mm. I love the sharpness and to the edge contrast I see with my Nikon but would love to directly compare it to the Tamron wide open. I do believe the Tamron has better bokeh.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

I own the 60, 105 (both the old and new models) and the 200.

All the lenses have their advantages (and are all excellent lenses).

If you are looking to do close-ups (but not necessarily at 1:1) and you don't like to carry a tripod / or your sbject is not willing to sit still whislt you setup the tripod then the 105 AFS/VR is the way to go. The VR is surprisngly effective at macro distances and I find that I can hand hold at 1/15th (and I'm normally not good at hand holding lenses).

If you like to do 1:1 (or more) and think you will be able to use a tripod then the 200 is a better choice.

The 200 is reputed to be optically sharper (but I have to admit that I can't see the difference unless I photographing resolution charts - I prefer insects and flowers) but is very slow to AF and too heavy to hand hold. The 200 really requires MF and a tripod (with macro rail). Having said that, I have had some success with a monopod and the new 200 macro flash units. The built-in focusing lights allowed AF to work at night.

The increased working distance of the 200 allows for more scope with lighting and composition (you might also be able to avoid scaring the insect away).

Which one would I buy ? Easy - both of them (and the 60 as well).

If I could only take one of them on a trip then it would be the 105 AFS/VR.

Jeremy Brookfield