Long macro lens options

[Druid]

So I've got a 105/2.8 VR micro-nikkor which I think of as a very good stablised short tele that can also do macro. Right now it's my most used lens but I'm sort of toying with the idea of getting a longer focal length, specialised macro lens to complement it. Here are the three options I'm considering, along the with pros and cons. All of them have dog-slow autofocus, but that doesn't really matter as I use MF for macro work. I mostly do flower photography and I'm looking for longer working distance and the narrower angle of view you get at around 180-200mm to isolate subjects more effectively from their background.

I'm just sort of thinking out loud here in the hope that people might point out things that I haven't considered and otherwise sanity check my thinking. Anything that I do buy will be second-hand from Grays or Aperture or someplace reliable like that.

200/4 micro

Pro:
Arguably the best image quality of all the true macro lenses.
Reputedly sharp as a razor at all distances and apertures.
Gorgeous out of focus areas in the pictures that I've seen.
Big, precise, manual focus ring that's optimised for macro.
True 1:1 macro & long working distance for bug-face shots.

Con:
Tripod-bound due to being enormously huge and heavy.
Specialist lens (albeit specialised in something important to me)
Bloody expensive.

70-180/4.5-5.6 micro

Pro:
Zooms and doesn't lose focus while doing so, so much faster to compose.
Much lighter than the 200 micro, can be used hand-held in a pinch.
More flexible field lens than 105 vr, assuming I've taken my tripod.
Discontinued, but I know where to get one right now.

Con:
Slow aperture and not quite 1:1.
Slightly rougher out of focus areas.
Shorter working distance, similar to 105.
I already have a 105vr field lens, with VR for when I don't have a tripod.
Probably can't do much that 105 + 200 can't do better, albeit not as quickly.
Also pretty expensive.

180/2.8 + PN-11 (52mm extension tube with built in tripod mount)

Pro:
I already own the lens and can get the tube readily and cheaply.
Stunning image quality that seems to be retained with the PN-11.
180 lives in my bag anyway, so adding a PN-11 doesn't add much weight.
Long working distance.

Con:
Not quite 1:1.

 

[sonny]

Do you think it will be a good idea to have your tripod with most macro lenses anyway? Do you have a good tripod? How important is portability?
Being far away from the subject is great. However, it can be a real PITA too.

Is budget an issue?

Sounds like your heart wants that 200/4 ! I think you should go for it.

Dependind on the kind of Macro photog. you shoot, correct me if i am wrong but aren't small apertures (f11,f16 and smaller) the more important? Especially at 1:1.

If your neck muscles are as weak as mine, you may wanna get one of those angle finders too .

 

[Druid]

Well, the 105 works OK off the tripod if the light is good, so for this lens I'm mainly thinking in terms of tripod use. I have a decent setup (Acratech ball-head & Gitzo Explorer).

You're right that smaller apertures are more usual for macro and again, I'd tend to use the 105 or one of my other lenses (e.g. the close-focussing 35/2) if I wanted to do narrow depth of field stuff.

The 105 works just fine if I can get close, but sometimes I can't and in any case, a longer lens offers more possibilities for isolating the subject against a smooth background.