Is 100-400mm viable for macro shooting?

[Calson]

One lens I miss a great deal is the Nikon 200mm f/4 micro lens. When photographing vipers I liked ahving the greater image magnification and greater camera to subject distance provided by the 200mm lens. With the Z camera the only option is the 105mm MC lens and this lens cannot be used with the Z teleconverters. Has anyone compared the IQ from the 100-400mm as compared to the 105mm lens?

At least with Nikon their R1C1 macro flash is by far the best available and it works fine with the Z cameras.

 

[Butlerkid]

Threads on this subject:

Here

Here

 

[John Navitsky]

i'm not a macro guy, but i find the 100-400 handy to grab random macro-y things as they appear. this is just a quick snapshot i wanted for ID purposes. i also have a 105MC, and i found it much easier to get the shot with the 100-400 with these guys flying all over. the syncro VR (present in both the 105MC and the 100-400) works really well

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Woody Meristem]

The Olympus 100-400mm (200-800 FF equiv.) is a really good lens for macro on things which won't let you get close (or you don't want to get near), it focuses to a bit over four feet at 400mm (800 FF) -- if the Nikon will focus closely enough it should be really good too and you could always use an extension tube to shorten the focus distance.

 

[Chris K]

I haven't had many occasions to use my 100-400 for macro yet... I've only had it out a couple times, and I didn't get a chance to go chase butterflies and dragonflies this year. So... grain of salt!

I found it easily sharp enough that lighting is a much bigger factor than the lens for closeup image quality. It also balances pretty nicely--its weight is close to the rear, so your left arm doesn't get sore holding the thing steady.

I would by no means consider it a replacement for a 100mm-ish macro lens. The angle of view and subject distance is not ideal for most subjects, it's difficult to shoot 400mm with flash, and framing is a royal pain when you have to orbit your subject like Pluto. But, if your subject is timid or dangerous, and you're willing to shoot either with natural light or blast-it-in-the-face flash, it's about as good as it gets for long telephoto macro.

 

[Calson]

Thanks Butlerkid - when I did a search this did not come up. All I am looking for is a 200mm focal lenth lens that I can use to photography small critters with a Z camera.

 

[Calson]

I should have mentioned that I am primarily considering the Z 70-200mm lens with its 1.6 foot minimum focus distance for use as a longer macro lens. Important for me is having a 200mm focal length macro alternative to the 105mm MC lens. In the f-mount world when I added the 200mm f/4 micro lens I stopped using my 105mm lens altogether.

 

[aolander]

I should have mentioned that I am primarily considering the Z 70-200mm lens with its 1.6 foot minimum focus distance for use as a longer macro lens. Important for me is having a 200mm focal length macro alternative to the 105mm MC lens. In the f-mount world when I added the 200mm f/4 micro lens I stopped using my 105mm lens altogether.

It may have a 1.6' minimum focus, but the magnification is only 0.2 compared to the 100-400mm's 0.38. A 1.4x TC on the 70-200mm would get you 0.28.

 

[JDG Photo]

I use the Canon 180mm macro lens with an adapter on my Z cameras. I also have the Nikon 200mm macro and really like its standoff distance. It will not autofocus with the Z cameras, but the Canon will.