thomson_chan Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Dear Nikon users, I am dreaming of buying a 105mm macro for my F80 body.I understand both Nikon and Sigma makes 105mm macro, and had read possitive comments about both lens. Does anybody know what differences are there, between the two makes? In terms of image quality, distortion, focus speed, the workmanship, toughness of the lens, ergonomics, etc... I saw that the Sigma lens has a simpler AF to MF switch, by just pushing the focus ring; where Nikon has a seprate ring to turn. Cheers, Thomson p.s. I am actually aiming to get a Sigma make, as I am still a poor student, but would like to learn more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof-K Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Also keep an eye on the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro lens. Its a wonderful lens, and I think sombody sold his Nikkor 105 to get the Tamron, as it gives you wonderful bokeh. I bought one, and it is now one of my favourite lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof-K Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 BTW, I'm a poor student too, and got poorer when I started photography. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavel_studenkov Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I have the sigma and my friend has the nikkor. Both feel solid and both have great optics. On my camera (N8008s) the autofocus is much noisier with the sigma. The nikkor 105's AF action is more smooth and quiet. I never use AF with macro subjects, but since 105mm macro doubles as a portrait/general purpose telephoto lens, this can be annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonhamilton Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Optically you would be hard pressed to tell any difference at ALL Between the two lenses. I own the Sigma and am 100% satisfied. I believe the Nikkor is a tad faster, a tad quieter, and built a little better. I have no complaints however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Nikkor: By it once. Tamron/Sigma/etc., buy it twice. Used Nikkor 105 on Ebay, less than $400. New Tamron/Sigma/etc., $300+ dollars. Skip the Blockbuster and Sony PS2 rentals and eat at home instead of going out for the next month, buy the Nikkor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonhamilton Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 well I don't know about all that, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_kramer Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I have the sigma 105mm on my D70, it works great.the sigma EX lenses are nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_blacher Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I'd get whichever you get a better deal on, having shot both. The Nikkor is a bit better built, but the Sigma is also well made. Regarding autofocus speed; if you're serious about macro you aren't autofocusing anyway. As has been said, they are optically equal, along with the Tamron 90mm (which is not as robust as either of the other two (I wouldn't let that stop me if I could get a good price on this lens). Yes, Nikkors are generally better built, but I've never had a build issue with any pro Sigma lens. They are with me in the field with my Nikkors and I have never had a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soeren_michael_nielsen Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I have the Sigma EX 105 mm Macro and I find it not that exellent in comparison though I have been quite satisfied. Sigma 105mm has 58mm filterthread, the nikor 52mm. When focussing the Sigma manually its the opposite of Nikors which can be irritating. Its well built but there is more wobling/rocking in it. I find AF to be slow and not that accurate but that dosn`t matter much since I focus manually on macro subjects anyway. The Sigma will wear out quicker than the Nikor, it`s not that well built. Sigma have just released a new 105 mm Macro which acording to a German magazine (Naturfoto) should be very good compared to the Nikor. They does find it to be one stop slower i.e. f/4,0. If you can live with that the Sigma is good value for the money though not the "best in test". All i all the Nikor is the better of the two but since the Sigma is not a dog and a lot cheaper go with the Sigma UNLESS you can get a good deal on a used Nikor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayward Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I have the Tamron - it's great. I've never owend it, but people say good things about the $100 Vivitar and Phonenix 100mm macros. Really. If I was a poor student, that's what I would do. If you have a little more, get a used Tamron or Sigma for $200 - $250. When you graudate buy the new Nikon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ_butner___portland__or Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Chan Both are excellent macro lenses. However, I find the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 to be sharper and better built than both of them. It goes 1:1 without any adapters of any kind. They go for about $150.00-$195.00 on E-bay. The newer Cosina made Vivitar 100 f/3.5 is quite lightweight, and funky in constructrion, but also quite sharp.The Kiron model is sharper, and better built than my Nikon equivalent. Russ<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now