Jump to content

Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR vs. Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX


rarmstrong

Recommended Posts

<p>I really enjoy shooting images of flowers and other small things in nature with my D300. For about a year I have been planning to buy the Micro Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR lens. This has been based on the great volume of excellent work that I have seen posted here with this lens.<br>

This week, another PN member suggested that I give serious consideration to the Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX before I buy the Nikkor.<br>

I have read multiple reviews of both lenses and looked at numerous examples of both macro and portrait work. I have also read some previous forum posts but they don't directly compare the two.<br>

The reasons in favor of the Sigma, that the other member mentioned are:<br>

-better bokeh than the Nikkor<br>

-no need for VR for macro work<br>

-Sigma is about $200 less<br>

-Sigma has excellent AF and build<br>

-Sigma allows a better working distance from small subjects than the Nikkor<br>

-Sigma comes with a solid removable tripod collar which is quite useful<br>

I own other Sigma(30mm f1.4 and 10-20mm zoom)lenses and I'm pleased with them. I have two Nikon lenses(18-200VR and 80-400VR)and I like them both. The price is not my prime consideration. I am mostly interested in a quality lens that will yield excellent images(assuming the guy behind the camera can do it).<br>

Does anyone own or have experience with both lenses? Or, if you own one of them, why do you like or dislike the lens for macro and portraits?<br>

Thanks for the input!<br>

Dick</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My 2 cents. If you will be shooting a lot of macro. You will eventually want more then one macro lens. Macro is not unlike normal shooting, you can but you don't have get stuck with a one lens limitation. I would compare like these. Do I want a Sigma 70/2.8 plus a 150/2.8 and use the Sigma 1.4X TC sometimes. Or Do I want to go all out and get these micro nikkkors, 60 AFS , 105mm VR and 200/4. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the 105 VR. VR works very well for macro in my hands This is why I bought this lens, and I have many insect macro shots that I could not have taken with any other lens.<br>

Another consideration is that 105 is not 150. These will be different perspectives; which do you want?<br>

Why do you need the working distance for flowers? I understand about controlling background, but if I was primarily shooting flowers, I think I'd be considering the Nikon 60/2.8 for its more interesting perspective, lighter weight, and because you can get closer, not further (less in the way if you can get closer).<br>

By the way I am sure the Sigma 150 is as fantastic as everyone says, but these do not seem equivalent lenses to me.<br>

About 100 posts will now follow denying that VR is useful for macro.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I had the 100mm Canon Macro a few years ago, I found it to be a decent working distance. I agree with you depending on what your shooting I would have liked to be a little further away. Especially with bugs and other things that might fly away. I love Sigma's EX line of lenses. It is really the only other line of lenses I will consider. To me the Sigma EXs fills the gap in Nikon's line between their pro $2k lenses and their el-cheapo plastic lenses. There a lot of people out there that still dismiss 3rd party lenses. Most who have used the EX line realize they are not low quality budget lenses; they are a realistic alternative to Nikon's high end glass. <br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/303-sigma-af-150mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-hsm-macro-test-report--review</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I had the 100mm Canon Macro a few years ago, I found it to be a decent working distance. I agree with you depending on what your shooting I would have liked to be a little further away. Especially with bugs and other things that might fly away. I love Sigma's EX line of lenses. It is really the only other line of lenses I will consider. To me the Sigma EXs fills the gap in Nikon's line between their pro $2k lenses and their el-cheapo plastic lenses. There a lot of people out there that still dismiss 3rd party lenses. Most who have used the EX line realize they are not low quality budget lenses; they are a realistic alternative to Nikon's high end glass. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Brian, thank you for the link. I have been very pleased with the quality and performance of my other two Sigma lenses. Before the other member of PN pointed this one out, I would have just purchased the Nikkor 105. Now, I'm not so sure, which is why I thought it would be worth the time to collect some more opinions from others who have used them.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have pondered over your question for a while. I have a D300 and both lenses, and I would not give up either. Both are superb, but I find I use the Nikkor 105mm VR more often when I'm out and about shooting flowers. The closer you get to 1:1 the less use the VR becomes, but if you are shooting images of whole flowers it will be of use. I find the Sigma can normally only be used on a tripod for macro work, but the extra working distance is useful for shots of small flighty insects. Saying that, I've used the Nikkor for insects and the Sigma for flowers and got fantastic images!<br>

So, if you plan to handhold and not at too high a magnification, then I would get the Nikkor. The colour reproduction and contrast is superb. The VR will work for close-up work, rather than true macro, when it is better to switch it off. It's also a superb short telephoto where the VR works brilliantly. The Sigma is a lot heavier and a lot less easy to handhold.<br>

In conclusion, I find the Nikkor is always in my bag when I go out on a shoot, but the Sigma is only used for planned macro shots. I hope this helps, but you could always get both ;)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you Paul. After my reading I began to expect that if someone owned both, they probably liked them both, but for different reasons. It makes the choice a bit more difficult. Having both would be nice, but that isn't an option at this time. I have even shot some flowers with my 80-400, but the closest focus is 7 feet:-) It would be nice to get closer with some very sharp glass. The idea of having the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro and the 150mm and getting their 1.4 teleconverter is also intriguing for more versatility. I've read that the 1.4 TC works quite well with both.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I own both lenses and can highly recommend both. I would be hard pressed to choose one over the other as they are really both fantastic lenses. Plus I can use either on my D700 or D300 so there is a lot of flexibility there. If I had to choose ONLY ONE then it might have to be the sigma 150. Having said that, the 105VR is and always will be one of my all-time favorite lenses. Now how's that for a non-committal type answer?</p>

<p>Fortunately I don't have to choose one over the other and that suits me just fine.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The Sigma is a lot heavier and a lot less easy to handhold.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's 895g (for the Sigma) and 760g for the Nikon - that's not a "lot heavier" in my book. Remove the tripod collar from the Sigma and that difference shrinks to nothing. I love hand holding that lens. The three-position focus limiter switch is nice too - one can restrict the focus range to macro only, infinity to about 2 ft, and full range.<br>

Richard - one option to get to use the 80-400 for "macro work" is to get the Canon 500D close-up diopter. I have one and carry it around when there might be the chance for a close-up and I am out with the 80-400 alone.<br>

105VR vs 150 Sigma - like many above, if I had the choice, I would own both - and the 105 would get most use for non-macro work. However, I own the Nikon 70-180 Micro Nikkor whose only drawback for me is the short working distance (at 180 it is about the same as for the 105) - so when I was looking for another macro lens, I wanted one that increased the working distance. The Sigma 150 and 180 were considered as was the Nikon 200 - the latter lost out because AF with it is just painfully slow (and the price is princely). Between the Sigma 180 and 150, the choice fell to the smaller focal length, mainly because I wanted to use it for non-macro work as well and wanted the f/2.8 aperture. The 105 wasn't considered because it wouldn't have given me an increase in working distance. <br>

One advantage of the 105 VR is that it can be used with the 5T and 6T close-up diopters (if one can find them and is willing to pay the price). On a DX camera, they can be attached to the Sigma 150 as well via a step-down ring - there will be no vignetting; the option of course does not exist for FX.<br>

Real macro work on a tripod with either the 105 or the 150 is painful. The 105 goes from 1:2 to 1:1 over a range of 9cm, it is about 12cm for the 150 - both are IF design, so in both cases, focal length changes a lot going from 1:2 to 1:1. Constant reposition of the tripod is the consequence because focusing changes the focal length and hence the composition. A macro rail comes in handy under such conditions. Not really an issue for me since I hand hold most of my shots.<br>

An example for other things to do with the 150 Sigma:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3633/3386770536_13a44a1d37.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It's 895g (for the Sigma) and 760g for the Nikon - that's not a "lot heavier" in my book.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I stand corrected, but perhaps I should have worded it as, the Sigma feels a lot heavier on the D300 than the Nikkor. Do not read this as the Sigma being heavy. It is not, and is still a pleasure to use, but I am just trying to explain the small difference, that leads to my personal experience, where I find the Nikkor easier to handhold. It is not to be taken as a criticism of the Sigma.<br>

I can also shoot portraits handheld with both lenses, but for true macro I obviously must drink more coffee ;) Therefore, I don't find using a tripod a pain at all, and I have found it is a small price to pay for pin sharp images, where the focus is on the exact area of the subject I select and the composition exactly as I want. The D300's Liveview is a superb aid for this, too. So, there's a different opinion. I find true macro work a pain without a tripod :)<br>

Whichever lens you choose, you will have a superb macro lens. See if you can mount each on your D300 and just pick the one you like best. Remember the VR becomes increasingly less effective as you use higher magnifications. With macro shots it's not so much camera shake you have to consider but maintaining the focus where you want it and the composition. The Nikkor would be my first choice for non-macro work, where the VR comes into it's own.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have 2X Sigma 150MM F2.8, one for my canon and the other for my Nikon system, plus many other Sigma lenses including both the 8 and 15MM fish eye lens, ever had any sort of complain about them, I also have the Nikon 105MM F2.8VR lens, the quality where sharpness and color saturation with the macro captures, of course when paying more, getting much better result, that why the nikon is ahead, the shooting macro distant the 150 Sigma is doing a great job also.<br>

One of the most interesting Sigma lenses as quality wise talking the 50-150MM F2.8, this lens proved to be very well balanced and I use with my Nikon system too much, another great lens there by Sigma.<br>

Thank you and wishing you all of the best.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you, Keith, for that honest answer:-)<br>

The weight is not a concern for me. I routinely hand hold my 80-400 VR because I shoot in places where a tripod is impossible(like from a kayak). But, I am also learning the virtues of a solid tripod and I'm intrigued by true macro work. A new tripod is also on my list but for now I'm using a 20 year old Bausch and Lomb with a fluid pan head that works...but not as well as a new Gitzo carbon fiber with a nice ball head. I'm not in a hurry about the tripod because I'd really like to study them and figure out my tripod needs before I spend the money for the "right" one.<br>

I like the smooth bokeh of the Sigma examples that I have seen, especially for portraits. I like the macro examples of both lenses. I also like the VR function for handholding. I think it makes a difference that is real, so that puts a vote in for the Nikkor.<br>

I'm coming to the conclusion that I will like the one I decide to buy and may decide to get the other in the future. I do appreciate all of the input.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Dick</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi, I had both for a long time. I sold the nikkor despite it being a favorite lens. Main reason is that I would never carry both and with a move to FX I found the extra working distance much more valuable than VR. Quality is for all intents the same from either both at macro and normal distances - different character but both modern sharp lenses. I had an old nikon 200mm micro AI which I found the focal length valuable but the sigma was better quality in a more compact package and at times a bit too long. The AF nikkor was too big for me to contemplate.</p><div>00TWN3-139621584.jpg.a5b67654b1650cb2443a918204421d40.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks, David! Your example is gorgeous and is just the kind of image that I'm hoping for...as well as the ability to do some nice sharp portraits with that superb creamy background. I have to say that your comments and Dieter's are making me lean toward the Sigma. It helps that I'm already pleased with Sigma products.<br />Dick</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Richard, consider getting some extension tubes to go with your zoom lens. They will reduce your minimum focusing distance and get better magnification. Close-up diopters are fine but you tend to lose some image quality I guess compared to extension tubes. Extension tubes mean losing some f-stops though. You can also use some old prime lenses with extension tubes. That would be cheaper I believe.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I must recognize that I sometimes missed a tripod mount on the 105VR; usually the times I shot in the macro range, but for the rest of the times (close-ups and mostly portraits) never thought about that. With the 105VR on a tripod, and specially shooting very close, the camera`s tripod mount is not optimal for the task... it gets worst if you use a ring flash. But the balance isn`t bad enough to be unusable, just "not optimal" I`d say.</p>

<p>Thinking on two lenses, or even three in the macro range... I like to use the 105VR as an all purpose lens but not actually for the closest shots (say near 1:2 and higher) for the reasons mentioned above. I still keep the 105/4AiS for that task with the PN-11 (here it is the tripod mount). A macro focusing rail is a great help here. When more working distance is needed (not so often) my favourite is... a 300/4.5AiS! The 300 with the same PN-11 gives a decent quality and <em>lots</em> of working distance. That`s the reason I`ve jumped over the longer macro lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Good morning my friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1712735">Amran Noordin</a>, thank you for your input, I had very bad experince with the TC canon 1.4, I bought while on holiday in Thailand, used with my both 70-200MM F2.8 and my canon 400MM F4 lenses, the quality of my images went down dramatically, I also been said that such extender do not work with modren vibration reduction leneses.<br>

I hope I can over come this problem during my holiday to Thailand this time as I have already made the order of 200-400 F4 Nikon lens to go with my DX3 and DX2 which I will take with me, I will work with higher ISO rating which I was so scared to practise before.<br>

Thank you again my friend and wishing you all of the best.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On a Dx sensor, isn't the 105 = 150, and the 150, = 225? Are you sure you want a 225 macro? The 105 can be handheld at a very comfortable distance for living things, I don't think flowers will mind either. It also makes a great portrait lens. It's very easy to illuniate your subject at these working distances.<br>

But a macro @ 225, a tripod becomes a must, so the tripod ring is a given, not an extra great feature, and keep in mind the +/- several mm of DOF @ 105, will be less @ 225. Theory is great to debate, but I'd suggest comparingyour technique and how they handle, both side by side@ similar magnifications; then get real serious with your technique @1:1.<br>

Read a few more threads as to how much more difficult the 200 macro is comp'ed to the 105. I think you'll spend the extra $200.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Interesting Stephen - and wrong. Very often, macro is shot at a certain magnification - for arguments sake let's pick 1:2. With a 105, you need to get closer than you do with the 150 - but DOF is identical with either lens since for a given magnification, DOF is the same. <br>

And it is against my experience that for living things, 105 provides a comfortable distance for living things. With my 70-180 I get the same working distance as a 105mm macro - about 5 inches from the front of the lens. One of the reasons for my purchase of the 150 was to get more distance, to not scare away the critters and to have a chance to get more light in there.<br>

Furthermore, focal length doesn't change with the format, a 105mm focal length is 105 on DX and FX. What changes is the FOV - it is narrower on DX than on FX - and hence the term crop factor: the smaller sensor crops a narrower rectangle out of the image circle than does the FX sensor. The relationship between foreground and background (perspective) is unaffected by the sensor format. That's the reason why I still like a 105 for portraits and not the 50mm - it's perspective was wrong for headshots on FX and still is on DX - never mind the narrower FOV.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Agree with Dieter 100%, except to add that, at the same aspect ratio, and if handholding, a shorter focal length should permit a slower shutter speed so that DOF can be increased by stopping down. VR also factors in to this.</p>

<p>I still think OP should decide if a 105mm or 150mm focal length is needed; both lenses are good.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks guys for the discussion, which continues to be informative and interesting. The more I read about these lenses, and the more images that I view, the more I end up feeling like Keith Carr...it would be nice to have them both because they can serve different purposes. I don't think I'll be purchasing them both right now. So, my decision will come down to which one first?<br>

There is a lot to pull me toward the Nikkor 105. I like to handhold the lens for flowers and other "close-up" shots that are not true macro and I think that the VR would be a plus for that. However, having just said that, I don't mind heavy lenses as long as they have a decent balanced feel on the camera. In fact, I kind of like that solid feeling that you get when you hold the D300 with a solid(heavy) lens, like the 80-400mm attached.<br>

So, the lack of VR on the Sigma 150 doesn't really put me off. My review of images gives a slight nudge to the Sigma for bokeh, which is also important to me.<br>

For true macro work, I'll be using a tripod(most of the time), except for maybe under my dock at the lake looking for spiders:-) So, the VR and the lens weight doesn't factor much into the macro decision. The spiders might...the farther away, the better!<br>

Anyway, I haven't decided. Father's day is just around the corner and my wife is always accusing me of not leaving anything for her to buy me as a gift. So, I should probably wait a few days to see if one of these lenses shows up.<br>

If anyone has any other thoughts about this I'd love to hear them. I think that I'm looking at two high quality lenses and whatever one I begin using will be enjoyable.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...