I have the AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 D and am thinking of getting the Nikon AF Micro 200mm f/4D? This is rated as one of the best lenses - does anyone have this lens? I shoot a lot of closeups of flowers and was wondering if the Nikkor 200 would be a better lens? Any comments would be appreciated. Many thanks
I have the 200, 70-180 and had until recently the 105 VR. The 200 is a pleasure to use. It comes with a tripod collar which I think makes it much more user-friendly for macro work than the 105. Yes it is bigger and heavier and if you want to work handheld the 200 isn't the better choice. Don't know about the non VR 105 but the VR version never really did it for me. Quality was fine but I have just replaced it with the Zeiss 100 macro which is simply stunning. It matches all of the positive comments I have read about it and then some...!!!
Anyway I digress. I love the image quality of the 200, the stability of a tripod collar and the working distance, being significantly longer that the 105. I found that the latter took a bit of getting used to but I like it and the narrower FOV. It has a huge rubber focussing ring that makes manual focussing 'easy'. I will probably sell the 70-180 but can't see me parting with the 200 nor the Zeiss. They don't get heaps of use but when they do the results are just too impressive to make me want to part with them.
Regards
Richard
