Nikon macro 105mm or 200mm?

[Reece Man]

What do you guys think about sharpness, build quality, and overall performance? I'm shooting a d700 and want a nice macro lens. I've shot the 105mm but have never even handled the 200mm so is there anyone who can compare the two?

 

[tirediron]

The 200mm Micro is not a "nice" macro lens, it is a freakin' amazing macro lens. If you can get your hands on one and have the budget, grab it.

 

[Reece Man]

Cool, I usually like to shoot with something before I buy it but seeing as they're so hard to come by I think I'll just trust the reviews. Time to start saving I s'pose. I might sell my 80-200 2.8 to pay for part of it and just use the 200 as my tele as well.

 

[benhasajeep]

I second Tireiron's statements. The 105mm is nice, I have had the AF-D version for about 10-11 years now. But the 200 opens up so much more. Jut like the 105 has a larger close focus distance over the 60mm. The 200 just rocks when your trying to get moving subjects that are a bit skittish when you get too close. It gives you about 6-7"s more distance at close focus than the 105mm. That is also helpful when you want to add things like extension tubes. Your not right on something with the tubes attached. The 105 is no slouch. But the 200 is a more usefull lens in my opinion.

 

[Pgeobc]

I own both and if you are on a budget, be satisfied with the 105. Some versions and some samples of the 105 are super sharp and the only drawback would be working distance. The 200 is heavy, about like having a howitzer barrel on the camera, for close work. The 200 gives wonderful images, though. Don't sell the 80-200; they are a classic lens and all were very, very good.

 

[djacobox372]

The 200mm af micro nikkor is amazing, but if that's too expensive for you. The best bang for your buck is a manual focus ais 105mm f2.8 micro nikkor. Fully compatible with your D700.

The older ais 200mm micro's had a different design, and I would stay away from them.