Sigma 180mm f5.6 Macro

Discussion in 'Nature' started by jeroen_gense, Apr 18, 1998.

  1. Hi

    <p>

    Is the Sigma 180mm f5.6 Macro a good lens for macrophotography?
    I know that's it is cheap can handle 1:2.
    What about the brightness of the viewfinder (despite the 5.6)?
    I wanna use it for insects,flowers etc with a tripod or flash.
    Who can help me?

    <p>

    Thanks,
    Jeroen Gense
    The Netherlands
     
  2. Hi,

    <p>

    A friend of mine uses a sigma 180mm 5.6, we have had occasion to compare shots of the same butterfly, mine taken with a nikon 105mm F/2.8 AF micro, his with the 180 and a nikon 5T, or 6T (?) diopter, and other than the sigma images having a slightly yellow cast (or the nikon blue) we found no real difference. His only complaint is that the sigma is mechanically very weak.
     
  3. Hi,

    <p>

    I've used the Sigma 180 5.6 in my old Canon FD system and was quite satisfied with it's sharpness. Works well with Nikon's 5T/6T diopters and have combined the 6T/180mm with a 50mm extension tube for photographing salamander eggs. Maybe not the greatest in low light situations, but if you don't want to spend extra for a 2.8, you won't regret it. It's also much lighter and packs easier than a 2.8!
     
  4. Hi -

    <p>

    I've used the Sigma 180mm AF F5.6 Macro on Canon 630 and RT
    for several years and have been well satisfied with it. My
    only comparison has been with the MF 90mm F2.5 Tamron Macro,
    with SP 2X Converter (giving a 180mm F5.5), and Tamron-EOS
    adapter (no longer made). On a very subjective basis, the
    Tamron *may* be very slightly sharper, but usual examination
    of slides with a 15X loupe shows no significant difference.
    The Sigma is not as robust as the Tamron, but I've carried it
    in a photovest pocket on numerous extended backpacking trips,
    and used it under fairly severe conditions (wind, blowing sand,
    rain) in Eastern Washington with no problems. Good value for
    the money. I can't comment on its quality wide open - I've never
    tried it.

    <p>

    Gary DuVall
     
  5. Does anyone know for sure whether this lens has been discontinued?
    Sigma lists only the 50 EX, 105 EX and 180/2.8 on their website. B&H doesn't list it but Adorama does. Also, please correct the following assumptions:

    <p>

    1) This Sigma lens + Nikon 6T has a greater working distance than Canon's 180 at 1:1. According to Photozone data, the Canon has a close focusing distance from the film plane of 47 cm @ 1:1. Subtract from that the combined lens length (~19 cm), the camera depth (~4 cm for EOS?) and the barrel extension ( BE - unknown), you get a working distance of ~(24 - BE) cm. the Sigma + 6T has a working distance of ~(34 - BE) cm (= 1 m /2.9 diopters) from the front of the 6T minus the barrel extension. Since Canon's full barrel extesion is 1:1 and the Sigma's is 1:2, the difference in working distance is likely to be even more than 10 cm.

    <p>

    2) The Sigma is effectively only 1/3 stop slower than the Canon at 1:1. My understanding is that you lose the equivalent of 1 stop at 1:2 and 2 stops at 1:1. Thus the Canon f/3.5 at 1:1 would be an equivalent f/7.0. The Sigma f/5.6 becomes an f/8 because it doesn't lose a stop between 1:2 and 1:1 when you add the 6T.

    <p>

    Yes, I know the Canon is sharper and the build quality is worse (how bad is it?), but the Sigma + 6T option is $384. Also, I have an Elan IIE - anyone know if there are compatibility problems between these two? Compared to Sigma's new 105mm, the 180/5.6 costs about the same, has a greater working distance and includes a tripod mount (I think). Furthermore, the size and weight are about the same between the two Sigmas. Will the downsides (sharpness, build quality & compatibility) to this lens outweigh the upsides (working distance, cost and tripod mount) when used strictly for macro work? I know that only I can answer that after testing all options. However, in a reasonably large metropolis like Atlanta, nobody stocks any of these lenses. So, like Jeroen, I'd appreciate any first hand knowledge anyone may have. Thanks.
     
  6. Sorry for the length of the previous posting. Also, I wanted to correct my email address here.
     
  7. My Sigma 180mm f5.6 macro lens with an accessory lens which brought it to 1:1 (just like my Sigma 90mm f2.8 did). The f5.6 can be dark, but of course it depends which camera it is mounted on. One benefit of the f5.6 is that it is so SMALL (it is smaller than a Tamron 90 macro, and considerably smaller than something like the Kiron 105mm macro). Another benefit is that the Sigma f5.6, like the original 50 and 90mm Sigma macros, uses easily available 52mm filters. All three lenses are sharp; the 90mm is comparable to the Tamron, and is actually a tad sharper than the current Sigma 105 AF macro. If you come across the Sigma "Macro Master" kit (or whatever it was called), you get hardvases for the 3 macro lenses, as well as a fairly elaborate 52mm filter kit for studio and field work - of course this is in addition to the 3 macro lenses mentioned above. Since Sigma no longer uses these optical designs, these kits or the individual lenses can be had at very good prices; all three lenses I have tested, and all three are excellent (though most every macro lens ever made it really quite good).
     
  8. How long is this 180/5.6 macro lens at 1:2 ? I assume it is not an internal focus lens ? (Trying to calculate the real working distance.)
     

Share This Page