Hi--

>Any quick thoughts on selecting between the 60mm, 105 mm, or 200 mm AF
>Micro Nikkors? I am at the moment leaning toward the 200 mm, on the
>theories that (1) ED glass is better, (2) 20" min. close focus should work
>better on wildlife (versus sticking the lens "in the face" of anything from
>a butterfly to a snake), and (3) it can be used with standard (e.g., SB 26)
>flash, saving nearly $500 on an SB 21B ring light, and thus is only
>$200-400 more than the smaller Micros plus a close up flash. Other than
>weight and price, I don't know of any big drawbacks to the 200. Is it
>sharper than the others? Any general guidance?
>
>--Bob Turner

I have not used the 200mm AF Micro-Nikkor (a friend has one that I will borrow one of these days...), but its reputation is good. ED glass in a
slower, not very long tele is probably not very meaningful, but the
increased working space can be useful for some subjects. I have had good results with shorter macro lenses on converters (sometimes combined with achromats, for high magnification) at f11-16, with an SB-24 mounted at
the end of the lens, pointing at the subject (the light is soft for
small-area photos, since the light source size is relatively large - and
the nearer the light is to the subject, the softer the light, giving
some advantage to shorter macro lenses).
The 60 is first-rate as a macro lens, the AF 105's are fairly close behind
(though I am not fond of the performance level of the 60mm near infinity,
and the 105mm AF's focus too fast near infinity [and a high percentage
show visible alignment problems near infinity at wide apertures]).
BTW, most people find AF useless for macro, and the flash "D" feature is inoperative at macro distances, leaving MF lenses as possible alternatives.
The MF 200mm, though, is not one of my favorites, though the MF 105 is
excellent, especially near infinity. The 55mm f2.8 is also excellent near infinity, but both the 55 and 105 aren't up to the image quality of the
60 in macro. Which leads, I guess, back to the 200mm AF, if you can
afford it.... (or maybe the 105, or the 60mm with 2X converter...).
David Ruether