105 f/2.8 or 200 f/4 for micro

[Kingsav3000]

Hi all! I'm looking to repurchase a dedicated micro lens as I sold my nikon 60 2.8 over winter to make room for my 24-70. I also want to use this outside of macro... I'm wondering which would be the better buy because now I'm on a d7000 but plan to move to full frame in a month or 2. My gut says go with the 105 and purchase other small things. But I know when I goto full frame I'm going to want that extra reach. HELP! Haha

 

[SamSpade1941]

the 200mm micro nikkor is amazing, or at least the version m friend has is. I have borrowed it on more than one occasion and it is extremely sharp. I have resolved to buy one in the near future after I liquidate some things I am not using.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

pffft. buy my 105mm 2.8

 

[bc_steve]

For macro purposes if you're photographing things that don't move get the 105mm. I assume it is cheaper and f/2.8 is nice when you're using it as a regular non-macro lens. If you want to shoot things that will move away (ie bugs and small animals), 200mm will be useful. And maybe it'll make for a nice telephoto too.

 

[Kingsav3000]

For macro purposes if you're photographing things that don't move get the 105mm. I assume it is cheaper and f/2.8 is nice when you're using it as a regular non-macro lens. If you want to shoot things that will move away (ie bugs and small animals), 200mm will be useful. And maybe it'll make for a nice telephoto too.

True. I do already have a 300 f/4 though... This is hard. And while it will be a nice lens when I move to full frame I don't think I could actually use it for anything else but macro while on a crop body.

 

[Flipper24]

I have the 105mm and it's a fantastic lens for both portrait and macro. Pin sharp and built like a tank.