is it waste of money to buy 105mm micro lens?

[investmenttechnology]

is it a waste of money to buy 105mm micro lens if I am planning to buy the Nikkor 200mm f/4 Micro lens in the future anyway?

 

[cgipson1]

No. The 105 will let you do physically close (proximity) macro shooting, which is often needed for lightbox work, copywork, and any type of vertical axis shooting. The 200 has such a long close focus distance that it sometimes makes it more difficult to use for this type of shooting. And if you don't have a Macro lens now, and can only afford the less expensive one.. get it and start shooting. Even if later you decide you don't need it, it won't lose hardly any value for resale. The 105 is also a faster lens.. and that can be useful at times for the obvious reasons.

 

[Overread19]

If you're a macro addict - nope no waste at all. I've currently got 150mm, 70mm, 65mm and 35mm macro lenses and each one has their place in my setup and gets used:

150mm - good long lens for outdoor work
70mm - good lens for indoor work when working distances are more tricky (esp the 1:2 distances) as well as being a good light lens for when I want a macro, but don't want the weight of the 150mm
65mm - ok this is the special 1:1 to 5:1 lens so its kinda in a league of its own
35mm - kinda the oddball because its more for regular shooting and for being a better lens than my kit lens rather than dedicated for 1:1 macro stuff.

 

[investmenttechnology]

these ave not nikon macro lenses , are they?

 

[Overread19]

Nope - the 150mm and 70mm are Sigma; the 65mm Canon and the 35mm Tokina - but the make is beside the point; the principle still remains the same no matter the brand

 

[investmenttechnology]

interesting, I thought getting the 200mm would make the 105mm redundant, I think I am going to get the 105mm before I get the 200mm as it is about half the price.

 

[BJF]

You will not be disappointed with 105.

Nikon 105mm f2.8 micro + market price