200mm macro

Hi all,

Do you know if divers use the Nikon 200mm macro in underwater photography? Or the max they use is the 105mm?

Thanks.

Hi all,

 

Do you know if divers use the Nikon 200mm macro in underwater photography? Or the max they use is the 105mm?

 

Thanks.

I have used the lens in the film days. Yoshi Hirata has used the lens with amazing results. I shoot a dx camera so today I use the Sigma 150 2.8 1:1. Both lenses are difficult to hold steady underwater, DOF is limited and contrast suffers but good results can be obtained. I had to have a custom port made to fit the lens. The shorter lenses will give you clearer, contrastier shots because the working distance is reduced.

I have one. I haven't used it in years. It is not easy to use underwater. It takes a long extension. Then you need to push your strobes forward to the end of the port. Now you have a rig that is very hard to hold steady. It was before the floats and stix stuff existed. It's very good for skittish critters. It still has the 1:1 ratio, so you are just shooting the same image from further away than the 105mm.

How do you remove the tripod collar? Or you also put it in the housing?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200mm-micro.htm

And do you have pics taken with this lens?

Thanks.

How do you remove the tripod collar? Or you also put it in the housing?

A nikon service centre can do it for you. Although a lot of UW nikon shooters sold their's with the arrival of digital (as has been said, a Sigma 150m f2.8 with a Canon 500D dioptre takes a lot of beating) - so there are quite a few on the secondhand market without collars.

Alex

Well I get a 210mm lens by using a 2:1 Kenko TC with an Af-105-VR. At maximum magnification (minimum working distance) I get 2:1 but at that distance autofocus is difficult. (Manual focus looks like it isn't going to happen with the port available on a seatool) It looks like I get better than 1:1 and decent autofocus at somewhere greater than minimum focus distance. The lens is no longer 2.8 but that doesn't seem to matter.

Tom

Hi all,

 

Do you know if divers use the Nikon 200mm macro in underwater photography? Or the max they use is the 105mm?

 

Thanks.

An alternative to the 200 Micro Nikkor is the 70-180 Zoom Micro Nikkor. Read this description (especially the last section): http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/...ikkor/n18_e.htm

This lens may have close to cult status here on WP.

Like the 200, the tripod foot needs to be removed by partial lens dismantling though some have sawed it off.

It would be better than the 105 and 200?

I used to own the 70-180.

It's a varifocal lens, so at 180mm it's not really a 180mm lens - more like a 105. So basically w/ this lens you get a 60 and a 105 on the same dive.

I personally prefer the Tamron 70-200 macro. It needs to be used with a closeup lens (500D). It's cheap, sharp, and well built.

Cheers

James

James,

I think calling the 70-180 Micro-nikkor a varifocal lens is incorrect. It is a true zoom in that it retains focus on the subject as you zoom outward from 180mm to 70mm. You are correct in saying it does not act like a true 180mm as you focus closer. This is also true of many internal focus lenses, of which the 70-180 was one of the earliest. As you focus closer, the apparent focal length gets shorter, something that is now called "breathing" which was a topic of considerable discussion with the latest version of Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 zoom.

I find the fact that the lens gets wider as you focus closer a nice feature IF you understand this and take advantage of it. Behind a small dome the lens is force to be at a close focus point all the time and acts more like a 40-100mm lens. Really great in lower vis for somewhat larger subjects. I also find the advantage of setting my strobes in one position and zooming for different subject framing a big advantage.

Concerning you use of the Tamron 70-200 with a Canon CU500D. Canon's dual element close-up lenses cut the angle of coverage of the lens they are in front of by about 25-33%, something I discovered when I had Canon's CU 250 cut in half to try over/under shots. As a result of this, if it doesn't breathe too much, your Tamron 70-200 with the Canon 500D is probably acting more like a 90-260mm or even more since you are probably using it behind a flat glass port.

I started using the 70-180mm with the Nikon F4 film camera, continued using it heavily with the F5 and still use it a lot with the D700. It was my most used lens during a Lembeh Strait shoot for Unterwasser last fall.

Fred

Fred:

Check out my article and test shots (of ruler) with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. (above water testing only) Since it's such a fast lens the autofocus is very good.

Cheers

James

Hi James,

I did see your article about the Tamron zoom lens some time ago.

What I was commenting about, primarily, was your calling the 70-180 a "varifocal" lens. That is a term correctly used to describe a lens that has variable focal length but does not keep the subject in focus when the focal length is changed. If the subject stays in focus when the focal length is changed, the lens is a true zoom lens. The 70-180 Micro-nikkor does keep the subject in focus, even at the closer distances, which makes it a true zoom lens, not a varifocal lens.

I also agree that the Tamron lens, in combination with the Canon 500D should have considerably more "pull", filling the frame with smaller and more distant subjects than the Micro-nikkor alone, both because the Tamron lens has a longer focal length (210mm vs 180mm), AND because the Canon 500D narrows its angle of coverage significantly. And yes, because the lens is F2.8, the auto-focus should be faster than a 4.5~5.6 lens.

If you tested the 70-180 Micro-Nikkor vs the Tamron zoom ON LAND and focusing at distant, near infinity subjects, you would find that the difference in "pull" between the 210mm of the Tamron lens and the 180mm of the Micro-nikkor are probably about what the difference between 210mm and 180mm would lead you to expect. You are using the 500D to attain closer focusing while the Tamron lens itself is focused at a considerably greater distance. This minimizes the "breathing" effect of a lens with internal focus that does exhibit breathing. If you added Nikon's close-up lens 6T to the Micro-nikkor, it would probably act much more like your Tamron lens, and possibly fill the frame with an even smaller subject since the T6 would allow the 70-180 to focus down to 1:1 on a full frame camera.

I think that the Tamron lens is a very nice option, especially for Canon camera users and for Nikon users who can't get the Micro-nikkor, which is no longer in production. I also feel that the Micro-nikkor might be the sharper lens and is certainly the more versatile lens for Nikon users IF they can find one. The price you see being asked when one occasionally shows up on E-Bay, about $1400~$1500, which is far more than the lens sold for new when it was in production, indicates the esteem and value which critical Nikon shooters place on the lens.

Fred