I don`t have the 105 AFD version so I cannot speak, but the AFS. This is my most used macro extension tube. If you can find it get a used Nikon PN-11 tube, a 52mm extension tube that comes with a tripod collar mount. If you do not need IS or VR get the discontinued version of the Sigma 150mm. If you like a lens around 105mm, consider the older Nikon 105mm f 2.8 AF D or an even older AIS version, or the Sigma 150mm f2.8 which has a tripod collar mount. If you plan to use the lens with a monopod, you can leave VR on. Plus it is a G lens and the use of Nikon extension tubes are not an option per the manual, sec 14. The Nikon lens manual tells you that “ As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x, the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease.” And if you use the lens on a tripod, which I do all the time, the manual tells you to switch off VR. I have no plans to buy the Nikon 105mm VR macro lens because VR offers no benefit for me when taking macro shots. I rarely if ever use AF when taking macro shots. I use all three with Nikon and Promaster extension tubes, the latter are "electronic" while the Nikon are not. I use the 200mm the most, about 85% of the time because it has a tripod collar mount and its greater working distance. I have the older 105mm f2.8 AF D macro lens as well as the 200mm f 4.0 AF D and a 55mm f 2.8 manual focus macro, all Nikon. With the 200mm it can be difficult to photograph a whole plant or group of plants and show the environment so it's a more specialized lens for really small subjects (1:2 to 1:1 is the range I often pick up the 200mm for - for larger subjects I can usually use the shorter macros that offer a greater range of useable apertures as well as tilt). Also, the 60mm can show a lot of the environment so if you want a clean background the longer lenses let you achieve that more easily. The 60mm also can be used, but it places greater demands on the positioning device (tripod + focusing rail setup) as you may frequently need to go very close to the subjects and field conditions often do not let the tripod legs to be positioned where you might want them). It's good to have something that lets you focus a bit closer when required. And the 1:2 limit of that lens is annoying. My most used macro lens is the 85 PC-E, but it would not be the first I buy if I were starting from scratch. The 200mm can make it difficult to photograph from directly above the subject, which may at times be necessary, and the 60mm is difficult to use for photographing really small objects (1:1) in field conditions due to its working distance (you need to position the lens really close to the subject). In the OP's position I would get the 105 AF-S Micro - the intermediate focal length macro lenses are in my opinion the easiest to use for flowers. In other words, why buy a Ferrari if you can only afford to pay for diesel?Ī Ferrari doesn't run on diesel fuel at all, whereas I don't think there is any doubt that D800E + 60 AF-S will give excellent image quality. The OP said "I would also rather not spend a whole lot so I can save up for a nice tilt shift PC Nikkor" so he's not averse to spending money on what he thinks is the best lens for the application (assuming that he's talking about one of the PC-E Micro Nikkors). Working distance can be an issue, though, depending on the subject. The 60mm AF-S Micro is optically excellent so it's not a question of making a compromise. I just don't understand why someone is willing to pay 3Ks for a camera but just 600 USD for a lens.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |