Nikon Micro-Nikkor 200mm f4
AFD ED vs Sigma 180mm f3.5 Apo Macro EX DG.
I have to confess that I am a fanatic
of macro lenses: Either for work or for fun, I have tried "almost" all macro
lenses with Nikon mount!
For macrophotography "on the field", especially for insects and other small
animals, I prefer long macros (180-200mm) with respect to mid-tele macros (
90-105mm). I prefer longer focals because they give some important advantages
for my style of macrophotography (others mileage may vary): the most obvious one
is that, at the same reproduction ratio, working distance is longer, thus it is
less probable to scare the subject so that it runs away or attacks me, but
another advantage is that Ican lower the point of view at the level of the
subject with much less effort than with a shorter lens. Finally, the smaller
field of view of a tele lens gives a more pleasant, uniform, background,
reducing the risk of including distracting elements or spots of light and
shadows which will render the background confusing. Disadvantages are that long
macros are heavier and bulkier than a 105mm, and it is nearly impossible to use
them without a tripod (onr that allows you to go very low).
Coming back to the main topic. among tele macros I used extensively the 180mm f
3.5 Sigma Apo Macro EX DG, then I traded it for a 200mm f4 Micro Nikkor AFD ED,
and now I have used it enough to learn its strengths and weaknesses and can
share my experiencewith these two lenses. I dont' put photos of the lenses,
optical schemes etc. since you can find them almost everywhere. I will put only
those data useful to evaluate the use and rendition of the lens, along with my
SUBJECTIVE opinion and some picture made with both lenses, BUT ONLY FOR
ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES since photos are postproduced.
But let's start:
Mechanical construction and
ergonomy:
The Sigma:
it is a sturdy lens, very well built, apart for the opinable EX finish ( however
it did not give any problem on this lens, in contrast with the 80-400 OS for
instance, that started to peel off from the very first day). The tripod collar
is stout, rotatable and can be taken off. The lens hood (provided) is very deep,
so that it gets into the way, not during transport (it can be mounted reversed
on the lens barrel), but when in use, since it steals precious working distance.
Filter diameter is 72mm.
Autofocus is ultrasonic, silent, it is rather slow, but not too much for this
kind of lens and, importantly, it allows manual continuous override. It is an IF
lens so that it doesn't change its length while focusing.
Like all modern macros the 180 Sigma allows to get 1:1 reproduction ratio, that
corresponds to a minimum focusing distance of 46cm and a working distance (distance
of the subject from the front lens) of about 23cm (without hood). On the small
window on the barrell are reported the usual data for a macro lens (distance in
meters and feet, and the corresponding reproduction ratio) ). On a side of the
barrell there is a switch to select focusing ranges focus mode etc. It accepts
only dedicated Sigma EX converters keeping Af with the 1.4x from infinity to
1,2m; below this distance with converter Af is set off automatically (more or
less). Quality with Sigma EX 1,4x is excellent, nearly indistiguishable from the
lens "alone" ; with the 2x quality lowers more, but, but results are still
acceptable. Exif data are corrected when using converters. You perhaps can mount
a Kenko converter but you will lose Af at least.
Sigma 180 f3.5 APO MACRO EX DG
Sigma 180 f3.5 APO MACRO EX DG with 2x EX converter
The Nikon:
If the Sigma is stout, the 200mm micro nikkor is a tank, handling gives a
sensation of solidity that recalls the legendary all-metal Ai-Ais lenses. Lens
barrel is finished with the classic "wrinkled" finish of pro lenses of its (old)
generation; much more resistant than the EX finish of the Sigma. Focusing ring
is wide and placed at the front of the barrell, unusual but practical when you
use the lens on a tripod. Maunal focusing is a pleasure, due to the smoothness
and perfect frictioning of the ring. Autofocus is the real weak point of this
lens, it is an archaeological item, very slow (much slower than the Sigma) and
very noisy (it is mechanical driven, not AFS); in addition, to switch from Af to
Mf you must rotate a ring (not practical) and there is no manual override in Af.
Even worst, the Af/Mf switch ring is the only cheap plastic part of the barrell,
and there should be mechanical tensions between it and the rest of the metal
barrell, as a result almost all 200 micro nikkors AFD af I saw had the ring
cracked (when I bought mine it was Ok but it cracked after a few Af/Mf switches).
The problem can be solved easily with few drops of an epoxidic glue, however it
is a shame in an otherwise excellent construction. As in the Sigma in the window
you can see distance values in meters and feet, and corresponding reproduction
ratio. The tripod collar is solid, rotatable, but it cannot be taken off. The
foot of the collar has two threads. This is great since you can block it on the
tripod plate with two screws, avoiding any lateral motion if by chance one screw
get loose a little. Stability is absolute, I never feeled something similar with
other lenses of this kind. The lens hood is metallic, short, nice with its
wrinkled finish but, it is sold separately, expensive and hard to find. Filter
diameter is 62mm.
The 200 micro nikkor gets 1:1 at a focusing distance of 50cm and a working
distance of 25 cm (without hood)
There are no nikon "mechanical"Af converters. You can mount the Ai converters,
but must pay attention that the mount of the micro nikkor has a rectangular mask
that does not allow converters with protruding front elements. You canto use
third brand converters without protruding elements to have Af. The Kenko/Tamron/Soligor
AF PRO DG fit well and quality remains good with the 1.4x and acceptable with
2x, roughly comparable to that of the 180 Sigma with EX converters.
Nikon 200mm f4 Micro-nikkor AFD ED
On the field.
Ergonomically the two lenses are similar, both valid and pleasant to use. If you
focus manually, the Nikon is better than the Sigma while autofocussing it is
just the opposite, Sigma is much better than the Nikon.
Optical rendition of the Sigma is excellent, sharpness has nothing to envy to
nobler and much more expensive "relatives" Canon and Nikon, Colour renditon is
good but with a slight yellow cast (less than the 150 macro Sigma anyway);
contrast is very good at close focus and good light conditions. Under backlight
or lateral light conditions internal reflections lower contrast and flare
appears. In this case the deep hood helps, thus if there are no problems with
ths subject, it is advisable to keep it on. On the mid/long distances and toward
infinity, sharpness/ resolution remain good, but contrast decreases
significantly, so that you have to work a lot in pp, to gain good results.
Optical rendition of the nikkor in macro is excellent, sharpness is equal to
that of the Sigma, (perhaps you can see a slight advantage for the nikon but
only at 100% enlargements). The superiority of the nikkor is in colour rendition,
more neutral, and even more in the better rendition under backlight or lateral
light, so that, apart for extreme conditions, you can avoid the hood. Ad middle
/long distances sharpness and contrast remain very good, so that little pp is
required, out of camera picures are better are better looking than with the
Sigma.
Nikon 200mm f4 Micro Nikkor AFD ED with Kenko PRO 2x converter
100% crop of the image above, the combo is not bad...
Actual focal length.
As nearly everybody knows, IF lenses reduce their actual focal length at short
distances and this reduction increases more and more as the lens focuses closer.
The Sigma 180 and Micro-nikkor 200 don't escape this (optical) law. Let's see
figures and how this affects practical use.
At a reproduction ratio (RR) of 1:1 the value of actual focal lenght
equals the focusing distance (in mm) divided by four. Thus the Sigma at 1:1
becomes a 115mm and the micro-nikkor becomes a 125mm, this affects not much the
working distance (a non IF lens will increase its length so that the difference
will be less than expected) but the angle of view, is that of a 115-125mm
and not that of a 180 or 200mm.
Reduction of focal lenght does not happen abruptly at 1:1 but gradually, while
distance is reduced following a curve. Here below the variations in actual focal
length at different distances and reproduction ratios.
Reproduction Ratio........................ 1:1........ ...1:2........ .....1:3
..... ... 1:4
Sigma focusing distance(cm) ....... 46.......... ...62......... .....79.........
96
Sigma actual focal length........... ...115mm.... 137mm.... .149mm.... 154mm
Nikon focusing distance (cm) ........50..............72.......... ...90.........
116.........
Nikon actual focal length................125mm... ..160mm.... 170mm... 187mm
The Nikon shows a steeper curve, so that reduction of the actual focal length
becomes significant only at RR close to 1:1, while at lesser RR it holds
a fairly long focal length with respect to the Sigma(to be honest it has
to be said that the Nikon has a longer nominal focal length than the Sigma),
anyway, an actual focal length of 160mm at 1:2 allows a good, smooth background.
Nikon 200mm f4 Micro Nikkor AFD ED
Which is better?
In short: 1) the one you feel more comfortable with and 2) the one you can
afford. In practical use you can make excellent macros with both lenses, the
Sigma wins for the price (it costs like a 105 nikkor) and the Af with manual
override. The Nikon wins for the better colour rendition, better contrast and
the longer actual focal length until RR 1:2 (smoother background) .
The third option.
I did'nt write about it because I never tried it :(
The Tamron
180 f3.5 macro has a good reputation, it is the shorter and lighter of the three,
It has conventional Af , specifications like focusing distance etc. are very
similar to those of the Sigma. Optical quality? Judging from what I've seen, it
seems excellent. A bit pricier than the Sigma. I would like a lot to give it a
try.... ;)
Thanks for reading and best wishes!
Silvio