Nikon Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 D (IF) ED

Here is another critical point to the test above, which is valid for macro lens tests in general. The critic is based on the fact that many of those buying macro lenses are particularly interested in the macro function of the lens. Unfortunately, the above tests never consider sharpness analyses in the 1:1 ratio, the critical end of the lens performance. The test above is carried out on targets at a distance being minimum 25x the focal length. I hope and expect that the tests of macros in the future will be carried out with targets closer, producing nearly life-size test pictures.
Several months ago I decided to buy a long, high-end macro for my Nikon D200. I already have a Nikon 105/2.8, which produces very sharp pictures, and my new one should not be worse than the 105mm. However, I am not able to choose between Sigma 150/2.8 and Nikon 200/4, mainly because most of the readers comments above. Consequently , I digested several test results involving the two lenses, but the tests all seem nearly useless, mainly because I work macro 1:1. The above test gives Nikon 200/4 a max resolution (sharpness) of just below 0.4, while the Sigma 150/2.8 ends up more or less equally sharp (these results are re-produced in www.ephotozine.com).
Another site, with different analyzes of the two lenses, is www.photozone.de, which lists resolution as MTF. In their analyzes Nikon 200/4 receives a center resolution of 1928 (F11) to 2055.5 (F5.6), while the Sigma 150/2.8 receives a resolution of between 1836.5 (F16) and 2251 (F5.6) [F11 excluded from the analyzes of Sigma], i.e. better than the Nikon lens. Even with a 1.4x tele-converter mounted on the Sigma lens, it produces better results than the Nikon without tele-converter [values 1929 (F11) – 1990.5 (F8)]. This, despite the extra glass added. I think this illustrates that the Sigma alternative might be better when considering sharpness alone.
A third test was published in the Swedish magazine “Foto”, issue 7-8 (2007). The magazine tested 19 macro lenses, among them the Nikon 200/4 and Sigma 150/2.8. A nice detail in the tests was that they included tests at 1:2 (half natural size). In the tests MTF sharpness was given between 0.0 and 1.0. The two lenses were very similar at 1:2, except at F8, where Nikon received 0.75 and Sigma slightly above 0.8.

I just purchased this lens brand new from KEH in Atlanta based on many reviews read, sample photos seen, etc. Here is my 2 cents. I own a lot of different macro lenses including the Nikon 105mm f4, (used to own the 105mm VR but sold it), Sigma 150mm, Nikon 55mm f3.5, Kiron 105mm, well you get the idea. I have to say that this lens goes right to the top. Yes the AF is slow, but who cares? It takes razor sharp photos on my D300, amazing colors - you really cannot ask for more. My advice is just to make sure you buy one from a reputable seller (not on eBay) so you can return it if you want to. I don't think you will want to. But what I have learned is that you can read all the reviews and study all the charts, but as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And taste is always subjective.

I do not agree in this review.
This lens is one of the best lenses except the slow autofocus.
By practice with this lens the slow AF can turn into a very fast AF depends on the camera and camera setings.
The lens can be handheld and is one of the best for butterflies and other fast flying insects. Again some practice to go to that level.
It is a very versatile lens. Never compare this lens with a normal tele lens. The lens is softer at the 200mm because it not build like a Nikkor 200mm F2. It's a macro lens and shall be used as this.
It's a very sharp lens too.
All lenses no matter which always perform better on a tripod. Macro photos should always be taken using a tripod. However I have found that it's possible to handheld in some situations like butterfly photography. I normally use a Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR for that but find the working distance even with a extention tube can be to long. With the macro lens you can make a shot of the whole butterfly without later cropping the photo.
I would only change this lens if Nikon makes a similar with an AF-S system.
You cans see some photos taken with the Nikkor 200mm F4 micro lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/steenheilesen/sets/72157600242263145/

whoever did this review should not be allowed to write a review again. EVER. the reviewer has questionable knowledge in photography in general let alone macro/micro photography.

his complaints about lacking DOF is not a shortcoming of the lens, BUT PURE LENS PHYSICS. ANY 200mm lens capable of such close focus will have that NARROW DOF. the "notes" on the images are laughable.

the slow AF could be a negative...MAYBE. but this is NOT a deterrent for any seasoned macro photographer...who uses MF 99.99% of the time anyway.

"This lens is an adequate performer, but again by modern standards, not outstanding." based on WHAT? those little photos you published?

"Consider a 70-200mm VR and extension ring instead." this is the clincher. NOT EVEN close, my friend. recommending this combo over the 200/4AF embodies what you really "know" about photography.

whoever did this review should not be allowed to write a review again. EVER. the reviewer has questionable knowledge in photography in general let alone macro/micro photography.

his complaints about lacking DOF is not a shortcoming of the lens, BUT PURE LENS PHYSICS. ANY 200mm lens capable of such close focus will have that NARROW DOF. the "notes" on the images are laughable.

the slow AF could be a negative...MAYBE. but this is NOT a deterrent for any seasoned macro photographer...who uses MF 99.99% of the time anyway.

"This lens is an adequate performer, but again by modern standards, not outstanding." based on WHAT? those little photos you published?

"Consider a 70-200mm VR and extension ring instead." this is the clincher. NOT EVEN close, my friend. recommending this combo over the 200/4AF embodies what you really "know" about photography.

very bad review.