105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR and 200mm f/4D IF-ED differences

Question from a novice:

Will the 200mm get me more magnified pictures than the 105mm? (I couldn't think any other way to say it)

I know the 200mm will give me a longer working distance, maybe 10" from subject whereas the 105mm I have to get closer, say 5+/-" to subject, the 200mm being better to not 'spook' insects and lighting being better, less shadows from working closer.

But will the 200mm actually get me better magnification than the 105mm?

Thanks!

And….does anyone know how much Glycerin to add to water for spraying to create drops? The ratio?

I could be wrong on this but this is what I think. Both lenses give you a 1:1 reproduction ratio. So in the end both lenses will give you the same image except the 200mm will give you distance between you and the subject more so than the 105mm.

Thanks, that's what I was thinking but I wanted to throw it out in the forum!

FastGlass is right
You need to get a lot farther away from the subject with a 200mm
Not sure what camera you have, but if it's a DX, the 105 will do very well

When comparing macro lenses, one of the things to note is the minimum working distance. They may or may not give that number directly. Instead they might give minimum focus distance. The working distance is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject. The focus distance is from the sensor plane to the subject, so with the minimum focus number, you need to take into account the length of the lens to figure the working distance.