I own both the Canon 180/3.5L USM Macro and this Nikkor 200/4 AF-D Micro. I have also owned (in the past) both the Nikon 105mm (non-VR) Micro, the Canon 100/2.8 USM Macro, and the Sigma 105/2.8 Macro for comparison purposes. I currently own the Canon MP-E 65 as well, but it's really not comparable to any "standard" macro lens.
The Canon lens has USM (Ultrasonic Motor) and is Canon's best Macro lens. It's an excellent piece of glass and better than every Macro I've used... except for this 200mm Micro-Nikkor.
As far as bullet-points are concerned, you could be forgiven for thinking the utter lack of technologies such as AF-S, VR, weather sealing, and Nano-coating, along with the shiny black paint with gold ring would doom this lens.
Think again.
This 200mm lens is an aberration in the exotic lens kingdom. Think of it as a white elephant or a unicorn -something magical that only a few "choosen" people will ever experience. It's like experiencing Nirvana, or the perfect moment in time. It is greater than the sum of its parts, and when mastered will produce a finished result superior to any other tool of its kind.
Sound fantastic? Foolishly hyperbolic? Sure, but...
The lens itself seems to weigh much more than its relatively diminutive proportions would indicate. That MASSIVE focus ring that occupies the entire front half of the maw seems like overkill -until you use it, and then it makes perfect sense. The manual focus seems, for lack of a better word, hydraulic. It is *so* smooth, *so* precise, and *so* consistent you'll think your flanges are swimming through heavy cream. Equally adept at non-macro photography -really an exceptional long *portrait* lens in its own right -a quick switch of the AF selector makes this lens focus surprisingly quick; substantially quicker than the USM-equipped Canon EF 180/3.5L Macro. Only the focus noise belies its lack of AF-S. The incorporated tripod ring is exceptional as well. As a whole, it feels as though the lens was crafted from a single block of solid plutonium. It feels bulletproof.
That's all well and good, but if it doesn't perform optically then it's all for naught.
In reality, if the lens was optically as good as it felt it would be perfect, but the plain truth is... it's even BETTER!
Dealing with depth of field (DoF) has alway been the macrophile's thorn in the flesh. How do you close the aperture sufficient to render adequate DoF and still maintain adequate shutter speed to combat motion blur -especially in the absence of a tripod or while attempting to capture subjects in motion? With a 200mm lens, this conundrum is exacerbated significantly and makes life that much more difficult. Modern dSLRs, especially the current crop of Full Frame models, alleviates this slightly by offering excellent high-ISO performance, but there is no "magic bullet" at one's disposal to eliminate this ever-present demon. The only way, sad to say, is through continual practice and perfecting of one's technique. Even then, the "keeper rate" of a seasoned macrophile will always be a small fraction of a percent, unless you always shoot in a controlled environment; like a studio or set.
This 200mm Macro is not for the faint of heart or for the casual user who wants to take the occasional close-up. It is *NOT* a lens for the first-time macro wannabe. It's a lens you work up to, having learned good technique already on lesser glass. It's intended for those willing to put in the time and effort to "master" (a generous term) such an instrument. But, boy-oh-boy, if you take the time, the rewards this optic are capable of producing are, in a word, unparalleled.
If you're a perfectionist, willing to buy the best macro optic ever produced by man, and are not deterred by the frustrations concomitant in extracting the best from what it is capable of producing, then look no further. This lens is your window into the very soul of the macro world.
=====
=====
Although it does not do it justice, below is a link to a 100% crop taken with this lens taken a number of years ago (2004) using an old Nikon D70 6MP SLR *not* in RAW, but in out-of-the-camera JPEG (Fine).The original image was taken at a distance of roughly 6-8 FEET from the butterfly.
Here's the UNEDITED, out-of-camera JPEG:Keep in mind, Nikon are notorious for their poor in-camera JPEG engines, and the D70 of last decade was one of the worst. RAW results, with a new model, are simply astonishing. I'm hesitant to post this example, but it's under the "worst" circumstances, and still holds up well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment