Question for macro photographers

I have a question for the macro photographers here. I have been thinking about buying a macro lens. I think I want one of the longer lenses so I won't have to get to close to the subject and possibly cause then to move or fly off. I am debating between the nikkor 105mm or the nikkor 200mm lenses. Is it worth paying nearly twice as much for the 200mm ($1000 vs about $1800)to maintain a little more distance from the subject or do you think I will be happy with the 105mm?

Thanks very much for your input.

This is not an easy choice, Robert. I shoot a lot of macro using the Canon 100mm on a full frame camera. By taking my time and approaching slowly, I can get very close to most of my potential subjects (as in life size or larger on some small damselflies). I've found a few cases, where having the extra working distance is critical. At this time, after owning the 100mm for 7 years, I'm starting to think about moving to the Canon 180mm, which might allow me to capture a few subjects that I haven't been successful with yet. In the case of the canon lenses the 100 is an f/2.8 while the 180 is an f/3.5. My view is that the speed isn't important because I like "more" depth of field so I rarely use my macro at f stops faster than f/8.

For skittish creatures longer is better, IMHO. I have been using a Sigma 180mm for years and really like it. A 300mm f4 with extension tubes also makes an excellent close up rig. Both the Nikon and Canon versions have a short minimum focusing distance.

I have the Nikon 105 and it a great lens but I mainly use the Tamron 180 for the reasons you mention It is a solidly built lens and sharp

There is Sigma 180mm f2.8 OS, i am eye-ing this lens for a while now, and looking for to buy it and sell my Canon 100 non IS macro, but i may do that after i come back from my travel.

Robert, I have both the Nikon 105 and the Sigma 150 (newer version). Like Myer, I also rarely use the 105. As between the two you are considering, I would get the 200 if I could afford it. I compromised with the Sigma 150, getting it for half the cost of the Nikkor 200. As I recall, it is also smaller and a little lighter than the 200. I also got the sigma 1.4 tc, which works quite well with the 150, but I don't use it very often. I also had the Tamron 180 for a while, but when I dropped and broke it, I replaced it with Sigma 150.

Hi Robert, I have a Sigma 150 and like it very much. It's super sharp, manual focus is a little clumsy but I have no buyers remorse whatsoever. Scott mentioned he "compromised with the Sigma 150" but I don't see how it could be much of a compromise since the sigma is one on the highest rated macros available, unless you just want Nikkor and I do get that. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the higher end macros out there. Good luck and happy shooting.

Thanks to all of you guys who replied. Lots of good info. The consensus seems to be go long.

Thanks again,
Robert

Regarding Bruce's comment on my "compromise" comment, I meant that I compromised on focal length vs the Nikon 200 . I agree that the image quality on the Sigma is excellent and probably on par with the Nikon (it's certainly on par with my Nikon 105). Had the money been equal, however, I would have opted for the longer reach of the Nikon 200. Hence, I compromised on focal length for less cost.

I used the 200 mm MicroNikkor for over 10 years. I've used the Sigma 150 OS macro for the last couple of years, usually with a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter. For me the extra reach is critical for photographing small skittish insects, and the teleconverter has virtually no impact on resolution I can see. The Sigma is every bit as sharp as the legendary 200 MicroNikkor. In addition, the OS feature has opened up a whole new world of possibilities, as I can do much of my macro handheld now. I couldn't be happier with the Sigma.