Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by two slow, Jul 23, 2007.
any one have any experience with this lens? Is it any good on digital bodies?
I have experience with this lens, but not on digital. I expect it will show CA on digital since it lacks ED glass. On film, it has a reputation for having lower IQ than the 105mm or 55/60mm macro lenses not as sharp and lower contrast. That hasn't stopped me from taking some superb images with it and I have not noticed any problems with the optics. I did a few comparisons with the non-macro AiS 200/4, which has a good reputation, and I could not see any difference. The Macro lens perhaps has more light fall-off towards the edges, but that would not be a problem on the smaller DX format. I generally shoot in the f5.6-f11 range which is the sweet spot.
The handling is very good. It is much more compact than the AF 200 micro and the third party equivalents. Being smaller and lighter, it is more likely to stay in my camera bag than bigger lenses. It accepts 52mm filters like many other manual focus lenses. It has a useful built-in hood. The tripod mount is the best found on any lens - when locked down it is literally held in a vice. The extra long working distance compared to 55/60 and 90/105 mm macro lenses makes photography in outdoor locations much easier, especially for subjects like flowers, plants and insects are often not within easy reach.
It only focuses to 1:2, compared to 1:1 for most modern macro lenses. I often increase the magnification by adding a PK-13 which gets me to about 1:1.4. This gives slightly more working distance at the expense of some lens speed (effectively around f4.5). Alternatively, I use a No. 3T closeup filter, which gives roughly the same magnification with no loss in lens speed, but with slightly reduced working distance.
I notice you have the D40x in your sig. The camera will not meter with the AiS 200/4 micro attached, and I'm not sure how well the viewfinder is optimized for manual focusing. If you are prepared to work with these limitations, I'm sure you could gain some good images. Otherwise, I wonder if a tele zoom, such as the 55-200VR or 70-300VR with a closeup filter might be a better option as they are fully compatible with your camera.
The D40x thing was done as a joke. I will probably go with a sigma 150mm. I saw one of these for sale and though it might make a good cheap solution to my current situation.
I appreciate your help.
I really love that lens:
On the D3/F3T, the Nikkor 200 IF AIS is a great lens. I'm sure the new Nikkor 200 AF-D is better. However, I got a 55 3.5 AIS, 105 F4 AIS, 200 IF and an SB-29 ring light plus PK tubes for a song and a dance :tongue:.
I'm just going to class but I'll post some samples later.
Gregory, I have both (AF-D and the AiS) but I'm not sure wheather
one is better?
For that I'm sure: the MF lens is smaller and lighter. And on a hot
day I don't like a heavy bag too much.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.