D200 and Macro?

[gns1497]

Anyone done any Macro Photography with the D200? Any lens recommendations?

[ELAY]

I don't think there is any particular "macro" experience relating to the D200 as opposed to any other Nikon DSLR -- macro is all about the lens.

The Nikon branded macro lenses I have seen most are a 60 mm and a 105 mm, both f/2.8, but there are others. Here's (http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tokina/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF_2.html) a page discussing some Nikon options.

All quite pricey -- unless you want to explore the pre-AF series, where there are some excellent lenses, but they focus manually (which for true macro is often the way to go anyway), and you would have to get them used.

There are a number of excellent third party macro lenses out there too -- Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc.

An important thing to know about macro lenses is that they aren't for dedicated macro use -- they are lenses you can use for any normal photographing, but which are built to permit close focussing and high magnification of tiny objects. For example, I think that the Nikon 60 micro and the pre-AF 85 micro are popular portrait lenses. This gives you an opportunity to kind of kill two birds with one stone by getting a lens in a focal length you want for your general photography, and then doubling up for macro purposes by getting a macro lens in that focal length.

Oh, and when looking around, remember that for some reason Nikon calls its macro lenses "micro."

Last thing -- I don't know if I am typical, but it has taken me the eight months since I bought my camera to figure out how I like to use it and what lenses I might want to get to suit my style. Fortunately the camera buy left me without funds to buy anything but the kit and a cheap tele zoom, but if I had bought lenses at the same time I bought the camera I would have made some serious errors. Unless you have an unlimited budget for lenses, I would consider getting the camera (repeating myself here, I know) getting the 18-200mm VR, maybe the 50mm for low light, and then see where it takes you.

EL

EL

[gns1497]

I actually have those 2 lenses, but am also interested in doing macro. Neither of these lenses focus at the short distances required for macro. Or at least I havent been able to get them to. Should I be able to get the 18-200 VR II lens to do macro?

[ELAY]

Nope, sorry, didn't mean to suggest that they were macros, just thinking aloud that if you were already set up for most of your needs, you could consider holding off on the macro purchase until you figured out if there was a focal length you would want to get a macro in, to sort of do double duty.

There are a ton of macro lenses out there, but they more or less divide into two kinds -- primes that magnify to 1:1, and zooms that don't quite get to 1:1. I think the main reason a lot of people by the zooms is so that they can get a macro and a long zoom in a single lens. Since you already have the 18-200 VR, you don't have that need.

If it were me in your position, I would want a prime in the 90-105 mm range (but that is partly with an eye to having a fast portrait lens in that range too). The Nikon 60 micro is a great lens, but because it is only 60 mm, you have to get pretty close to your subject for 1:1 magnification,which is apparently no good for bugs.

The Nikon 105 VR is supposed to be a fabulous lens, but it's expensive at $800.

Then you are basically into third party lenses -- unless you want to reach back into a used Nikon lens -- and there are some very good ones. The Tamron and Tokina 90s are supposed to be very good, with the Tamron doubling as an excellent portrait lens apparently. I have also read good things about the Sigma 70 and 105. Lots of reviews out there, though they all tend to say that all these lenses are good lenses.

Good luck.

EL

[NaturesPixel]

You need to ask your self what you are going to be photographing...

i had only intended to shoot flowers, water drops and things .. only requiring me to have a 50mm Sigma macro (pre ex) but after 6 mths i now find my self wanting to photograph insects and the like... the 50mm just don't cut it .. unless the insect is dead...lol
i need a longer focal length the 105mm would be perfect it would give me the distance required to shoot insects but give them the personal space they need...

AF doesn't matter when it comes to macro on the 1:1 scale the only way you can get it tack sharp is to use MF and a tripod and i find using a remote helps also...

the 18-200 VR doesn't have any macro capabilities... tho can focus in as close as 50cm through out the range so at 200mm you gonna get in nice and close but not as close as you want i think...

if the price of the Nikon 105mm or the Tamron 90mm and Sigmas equiv is to expensive try looking at the older AI, AI-S and E lenses they work on the D200 you just need to manually focus which is a good thing

hope this helps some ^.^

[gns1497]

Yes everyone says to manual focus in macro. I had some good shots, but also many not-so-good shots using my point and shoot Nikon 8800VR camera. I think mostly because i was using autofocus. It has a macro mode and is a great versatile lens, but since I have upgraded the camera to SLR, i'd like to just sell that and get a macro lens for my D200.

Thanks for the lens suggestions. I'm leaning toward the sigma 105, but may look at the older manual focus nikkor macros before I buy.