I love my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro but would like to move back from my subjects and use a small aperature for the DOF but get a more pleasing (OOF) background.

I am considering the 70-180mm F/4.5=5.6D ED Micro Zoom or 200mm f/4D IF ED.

Using my PG-2 focusing stage is awkward in the field (size, weight, extra height of rig on tripod head) so the Zoom seems to make sense but the lense is even slower yet than the 200. Would also like to maintain versatility and be able to use my Kenko 300 Pro 1.4X TC.

Unfortunately I am not within a reasonable driving distance to any photo store that stock both so I will take two long drives starting very early on Saturday morning to be at the shops during their 10AM-1PM operating hours on the weekend.

Heard the 70-180 has a plastic front filter thread?

Any thoughts from those that have used either or both?

Jeff

Jeff
"From the Mtns of New Mexico"

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The 70-180 won't do a 1:1 reproduction ratio without a 6T closeup lens, otherwise it's a 3:4 reproduction ratio. This may not be a problem depending on your style of photograpy.

You'll likely be stopped down quite a bit doing macros so the minimum aperature probably won't be a factor.

Sheldon Young

>You'll likely be stopped down quite a bit doing macros so
>the minimum aperature probably won't be a factor.

It will be a factor; a clearer viewfinder alloows easier focussing, and f4 will give you a cleares viewfinder than f5.6.

If you want to use a converter, you'd better have the best lens available. The difference between 200 + TC and 70-180 + TC will be even more important than the difference between the two lenses without TC.

Regards,
Philip

My website
My galleries

I have been looking at both those lenses for some time now, as I have a Tokina AT-X M100AF f/2.8 macro lens, not a Nikkor.
The 200mm f/4 micro seems to be the weapon of choice by most pros, maybe because it allows for the maximum working distance, among other factors.
The 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF Zoom Micro Nikkor on the other hand, has received much praise from well seasoned Nikonian amateurs that appreciate its inherent focal versatility as a zoom and zooming itself, instead of moving the whole rig as with a prime macro.
It is just too bad I don't do that much macro shooting, otherwise my choice would have been made long ago: most likely the 200mm f/4.

Have a great time
JRP (Founder & Administrator. Nikonian at the north-eastern Mexican desert) Gallery, Brief Love Story, The Team
Join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members that help this happen; upgrade. Join your personal web site to the Nikonians WebRing
Make sure you check our workshops at The Nikonians Academy

Sheldon, Philip, JRP,

Thanks for the input.

My gut instinct tells me to go with the 200mm and for the 1:1 macro, faster lense (I need the brightfinder!),and slightly longer focal length. I still have a month or so to get smarter to make my choice so I hope to get more feedback from other users as well.

With the 200 I would probably need a focusing stage and would consider replacing my current (very large and bulky) PG-2 with the soon to be released RRS B150 which will allow both fore-aft and vernier movement while maintaining a manageable field package size and weight.

Jeff

Jeff
"From the Mtns of New Mexico"

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> With the 200 I would probably need a focusing stage ...

Jeff, note that with either the 200 or the 70-180, you may not need a focusing stage (or rail) at all. Both have rotating tripod collars and I know from a previous thread that you use Arca-Swiss style clamps and plates on your tripod. So, you can easily achieve fore-aft movement by slightly moving your RRS lens plate withing the clamp. In macro, a slight movement in either direction is sometimes all you need. Less is more. Don't pack the weight if you don't need to.

Of course you lose the left-right movement of a fancy focusing stage. But this is not as important in the field as fore-aft direction, especially for critical focus.

Anyways, just a thought. Give it a try right now with your RRS setup.

Ed

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ed,

You are quite right for "coarse" adjustments and that can be adequate sometimes...certainly in lieu of moving the tripod setup slightly but the geared stage on the PG-2 is nice if you only have a shallow plane in focus caused by the additional working distance of the telephoto.

Even with my 105 the stage comes in more than handy..almost critical to good focus in the right plane. The PG-2 is just too cumbersome to take on hikes. It takes up alot of real estate in my pack because I have to wrap it (edges poke everything)and it is too large to fit into a convienient strap on pouch like my large lens pouches. Can't wait to see what RRS comes out with later this year in the B150.

Jeff

Jeff
"From the Mtns of New Mexico"

Visit my Nikonians gallery.