First Macro setup for a D800. 105 or 200mm??

[saltrock]

Hi.

I'm looking for a decent macro lens for the D800, I'm not really interested in anything shorter than the 105 as my macro shots will mostly be wildlife and probably easily scared.
Primarily i'll be hand holding the equipment.
I have read the Nikkor micro 105 is not as sharp as the sigma equivalent, is this cause alone to write off the nikkor 105 and go for the Sigma?

I'm also looking at the Nikon R1 speedlight, would that work well with the 200mm or is it really designed for the 105 and shorter lenses?

Although cost is not my main concern, I can get the lenses for the following prices new...
[h=1]Nikon AF Micro NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED Lens - £828[/h][h=1]Nikon R1 Wireless Close-up Speedlight System - £346[/h][h=3][h=1]Nikon AF-S VR Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens - £508[/h][h=1]Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens - £458[/h][/h]Many thanks in adv for any help
Saltrock

 

[jaomul]

Handholding a 200mm macro will be a tough order. For that reason alone I would go shorter. There are midway 150 and 180mm macros also. I believe the Stigma 150 has stabilization but even so at such short distances stabilization isn't fantastic for macro. As for sharpness I have never read a bad IQ review on a modern macro lens

 

[TheBiles]

Handholding a 200mm macro will be a tough order. For that reason alone I would go shorter. There are midway 150 and 180mm macros also. I believe the Stigma 150 has stabilization but even so at such short distances stabilization isn't fantastic for macro. As for sharpness I have never read a bad IQ review on a modern macro lens

Hand-holding macro isn't so bad with a ring light. Just keep your shutter fast enough to counter any shake, and the flash will do the rest of the work. I'd say that longer is definitely better if you're shooting bugs and other small animals with it.

 

[Rhoads238]

I have the 105 macro and it is a fantastic lens. I have heard it is a bit sharper than the 200 macro although when i tried the 200 I didn't see much diference. The 200 has a better build quality and feel than the 105 which is still very good. I haven't tried the sigma offering so I cant comment on that. Honestly It may be a matter of deciding which number of mm best suits you.

 

[cgipson1]

The 200 Nikon is not a good lens to learn macro with... it requires good technique, and is best used on tripod. Handholding is possible, but again requires very good technique and Flash.

I have never heard that the Sigma 105 lens is sharper than it's Nikon equivalent... and would only recommend the Nikon. I have one, and use it a lot. If money is an issue, I would also recommend the Tokina 100, especially if just starting out in Macro. the Sigma 150 / 180 might also be options for you.. but keep in mind, that the longer the focal length... the harder it is to handhold. Handholding any macro lens (when at macro ranges) also usually requires flash (as mentioned above)... to get good lighting, and no motion blur.

I also have the D800... and do macro with it. I also have the R1C1 flash system, and it is excellent on the 105. It is less so on the 200 because of the minimum focusing distance.

At the 200's focusing distance it is almost like using a single flash. You would be better off with a good speedlight and small softbox on the 200, especially if you have remote triggering capability.

With the 105, the R1s can be set at different power levels, so that you don't get flat light.

 

[Overread]

The biggest downside to the small R1 flash heads its two fold:

1) They are small units so adding diffusion to the flash heads is difficult and often requires custom setups (paper, card, tape and stuff).

2) The position out at the front of the lens makes them even harder to add diffusion material to because you have a very limited amount of space between them and the subject (and any diffusion setup is going to push out and defeat the point of a longer lens to shoot from further away).


Personally I typically only use small flash heads with my very short focal length macro lens and high magnification photography where their small size becomes a boon in positioning. For regular macro work I would suggest a speedlite design flash coupled with a diffuser - eg a Lumiquest softbox - which would let you get the light you need and also give you a flash that works well for almost any other area of photography.
You will also need a flash bracket setup for this so that you can position the flash head into the right position and get it out of the camera hotshoe.



As for sharpness questions, honestly whilst there are some variations all the current market macro lenses and even many of the ones released in the last few years are all around the same level of optical performance. Yes there are differences, but they are often very minor and after editing often invisible (eg minor sharpness differences between macro lenses will normally vanish after any editing). Further much of macro work often takes place at smaller apertures like f8 where your sharpness differences are even more reduced between different lenses.

 

[pixmedic]

The Tokina 100mm and Tamron 90mm f/2.8 are both good third party macro lenses, but if you have the budget for the Nikkor 105mm, you can never go wrong with OEM.

 

[greybeard]

Right now I'm using the Nikon 105mm with an sb700 and the R1 in waiting. For walking around/handholding, the SB700, f/22, 1/250 set, ISO 100 is working well for me. I'm guessing that I could probably get the same results with the Tokina, Tamron, or Sigma.

 

[digital flower]

I have read the Nikkor micro 105 is not as sharp as the sigma equivalent, is this cause alone to write off the nikkor 105 and go for the Sigma?
Saltrock

I dont know who said that but I find the Nikon 105 mm an amazingly sharp lens. It doubles as my walking around lens too with good results.

 

[Judobreaker]

The biggest downside to the small R1 flash heads its two fold:

1) They are small units so adding diffusion to the flash heads is difficult and often requires custom setups (paper, card, tape and stuff).

2) The position out at the front of the lens makes them even harder to add diffusion material to because you have a very limited amount of space between them and the subject (and any diffusion setup is going to push out and defeat the point of a longer lens to shoot from further away).

Doesn't the R1C1 set come with 2 diffusers? Mine did, I use them all the time.

 

[Overread]

The biggest downside to the small R1 flash heads its two fold:

1) They are small units so adding diffusion to the flash heads is difficult and often requires custom setups (paper, card, tape and stuff).

2) The position out at the front of the lens makes them even harder to add diffusion material to because you have a very limited amount of space between them and the subject (and any diffusion setup is going to push out and defeat the point of a longer lens to shoot from further away).

Doesn't the R1C1 set come with 2 diffusers? Mine did, I use them all the time.

What kind of diffusers are they? (have you got a pic of them to show?)

 

[sleist]

The biggest downside to the small R1 flash heads its two fold:

1) They are small units so adding diffusion to the flash heads is difficult and often requires custom setups (paper, card, tape and stuff).

2) The position out at the front of the lens makes them even harder to add diffusion material to because you have a very limited amount of space between them and the subject (and any diffusion setup is going to push out and defeat the point of a longer lens to shoot from further away).

Doesn't the R1C1 set come with 2 diffusers? Mine did, I use them all the time.

What kind of diffusers are they? (have you got a pic of them to show?)

If you're referring to the items in the pic below, these are not technically diffusers (though they can be used that way I suppose). These are for very close macro work.
I have tried them as diffusers, but found the light was still too directional. A goofy setup with plastic cups and tissue paper was more effective at distances that my Sigma 150 requires - at least for me.

 

[cgipson1]

I also got some of the regular wide angle diffusers for the SB-900 and modified them to fit the R1C1 units..... they work really well. The R!C! system also comes with some thin plastic snap-on lenses for the flashes... I put some of the frosted type scotch tape on those, and it seemed to really cut direct flash glare

I also created a diffuser panel similar to what Orion Mystery (Kurt) uses... and it rocks.

MT24EX concave diffuser quick update | Up Close with Nature

 

[sleist]

Speaking of the R1C1 kit - does anyone used that 6x8 diffuser panel that comes with with it. I've seen references for how it's supposed to be used, but it seems rather awkward to use with any of the Nikon-supplied paraphernalia.

And to the original question - I own or have used the Tamron 90, Sigma 150, and Nikon 105 and all are all excellent. The biggest decision for macro is the intended subjects and best working distance for them. Then it's really down to budget.

 

[cgipson1]

Speaking of the R1C1 kit - does anyone used that 6x8 diffuser panel that comes with with it. I've seen references for how it's supposed to be used, but it seems rather awkward to use with any of the Nikon-supplied paraphernalia.

And to the original question - I own or have used the Tamron 90, Sigma 150, and Nikon 105 and all are all excellent. The biggest decision for macro is the intended subjects and best working distance for them. Then it's really down to budget.

On the diffuser panel...I don't consider it that usable for the type of shooting I do. It might be ok indoors, in perfect conditions.... but sucks for handheld field shooting.