Digital Macro Lens, Sigma Better?

[dan_brown14]

I've settled on getting a 50-60mm macro lens for my D100. Of course, the Micro 60 is the

obvious choice as I've always preferred Nikkor glass.

 

But...

 

Sigma has athe new "DG" series 50mm macro, with strong claims of improved

performance for digital sensors. I've heard that the Tamron and Sigma macros are very

good optically. So, I'm wondering it this is a time when the Sigma is a better choice?

 

Has anyone noticed and aberrations for color fringing with the Micro 60 on a ditial camera.

 

Thanks...

[vivek iyer]

Tamron also sells lenses with "Di"letters added to the name of a lens.

 

None of the Nikkors (pre digital or current) have any claims on if they suitable for digital or not. May be none is fully matched for a digital capture?

[benoit_deshaies]

<p><em>None of the Nikkors (pre digital or current) have any claims on if they suitable for digital or not.</em></p>

 

<p>What about DX lenses, such as the 18-70mm ? Nikon claims, and I quote: "DX Nikkor lenses offer better performance for D-series users[...]"</p>

[arnabdas]

I know about Tamron Macro 90/2.8 "Di" version and they have not redesigned the lens elements or added any ED elements. They just claim to use a special coating that they claim will improve digital shots over non-Di versions. I suspect Sigma might be doing the same.

 

I don't think there will be any noticeable difference between non-Di and Di (in Tamron terminology) versions, unless the Di versions involve ED elements which should help reduce color fringing. That said, you cannot go wrong with most modern Macro lenses.

[Ed_Ingold]

Other than DX lenses, which have a reduced coverage for weight and economy, Nikon has no lenses specifically designed for digital sensors. This is a conscious decision based on several factors.

 

First, using APS-sized sensors means the angle of incidence (from vertical) is less at the edges than for full-sized sensors. Digital sensors are more sensitive than film to the angle of incidence because they are more reflective and have a narrow field of acceptance.

 

Secondly, newer cameras, at least the D2 series, have micro-lenses in the sensor which optimize the angle of sensitivity to the existing lenses, whether DX or standard.

 

Finally, because the backfocus distance is relatively large, there is no compelling reason to use negative rear elements to partially colimate the light path. Olympus, using a 4/3 sensor, designs lenses in this fashion, but has a much shorter back focus. Nikon feels the cost and image degradation due to one or more extra elements makes this design less effective than optimizing the sensor.

[dan_brown4]

Thanks edward, very interesting. My 'gut' tells me to go withh the Nikkor.

[douglas_greenberg]

The digital macro lenses have more/better antireflective coating on the rear element. Apparently there are circumstances in which you can end up with weird reflections in the photo because of the way a point of bright light can strike the digital sensor.

 

So there might be circumstances in which the "digital" version of a macro lens is superior to a non-digital version. From what I can discern, however, these circumstances are fairly unusual.

 

On the other hand, in the vast, overwhelming number of situations, you also won't really be able to tell the difference in your photos between the Sigma and Nikon versions of a 50-60mm. macro lens, save for the fact that there inevitably will be a slight difference in color cast. If it were me, I'd investigate how each lens performs at very small apertures, which are important in macro photography. Some "cheaper" macro lenses don't do as well as Nikon macros in this regard.

[vivek iyer]

"If it were me, I'd investigate how each lens performs at very small apertures, which are important in macro photography. Some "cheaper" macro lenses don't do as well as Nikon macros in this regard."

 

This is where (smaller apertures) the "cheaper"macro lenses have an overwhelming advantage over the Micronikkors, being cheaper. Micronikkors, with the possible exception of the 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro, do poorly at smaller apertures due to diffraction compared to their optimal aperture settings (which is normally between f/5.6 and f/11 and not less). There has been numerous discussions on this topic and is quite well know to many a Nikon users as well as these Micronikkors have been in use for a very very long time.

[dan_brown4]

"This is where (smaller apertures) the "cheaper"macro lenses have an overwhelming

advantage over the Micronikkors, being cheaper. Micronikkors, with the possible

exception of the 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro, do poorly at smaller apertures due to diffraction

compared to their optimal aperture settings (which is normally between f/5.6 and f/11

and not less). There has been numerous discussions on this topic and is quite well know

to many a Nikon users as well as these Micronikkors have been in use for a very very long

time."

 

???<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

Nice bunny with a nicer pancake!

[huw_evans2]

I use the 60mm Micro-Nikkor on a D100 and D2H, and I can't fault it - it's a very fine lens, with no significant aberrations or colour fringing that I can see. I've no idea about the Sigma though. I also use a Tamron 180mm Di macro lens for when I need greater working distance from the subject, and that too is a superb lens.<br>

<p>

 

Here are a couple of samples with crops from the 60mm:<br>

<p>

<a href="http://www.huwevans.freeuk.com/Pictures/Blackthorn_1567.jpg">Sample 1</a><br>

<a href="http://www.huwevans.freeuk.com/Pictures/Blackthorn_1567_crop.jpg">Sample 1, crop</a><br>

<a href="http://www.huwevans.freeuk.com/Pictures/DSC_1485.jpg">Sample 2</a><br>

<a href="http://www.huwevans.freeuk.com/Pictures/DSC_1485_crop.jpg">Sample 2, crop</a>

[douglas_greenberg]

"Micronikkors, with the possible exception of the 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro, do poorly at smaller apertures due to diffraction compared to their optimal aperture settings (which is normally between f/5.6 and f/11 and not less). There has been numerous discussions on this topic and is quite well know to many a Nikon users as well as these Micronikkors have been in use for a very very long time."

 

Sorry to seem ignorant here, but it's news to me that Nikon macro lenses are particularly poor performers at smaller apertures. I would have thought that how macro lenses are designed to perform at these smaller apertures would be an important consideration for a lens maker, i.e., it's more important for a macro lens to hold up well at f22 than it is for a "standard" lens.

[daniel_smith6]

Did you go school with WtheTush??? The bunny has two pancakes on its head.

[vivek iyer]

Micronikkors when stopped down give poorer pictures because of diffraction compared to their performance at their optimal apertures.

That is the way it is.

[dan_brown14]

Yeah, but the pancakes are stuck together, and, they tasted great with maple syrup.

 

Vivek, thanks for clearing that up, but wouldn'y the third party lenses also have the

diffraction issue at real small apertures?

[vivek iyer]

That is right Dan. At smaller apertures, 'pretty much' all else become equal , except the price.

[arnabdas]

>At smaller apertures, 'pretty much' all else become equal

 

Well, as far as the Tamron 90 is concerned -- pretty much everything is equal to the 105 AF micro, at all apertures.

[walterh]

And it gets worse with increase in magnification.

[walterh]

Arnab got in between - so my comment makes no sense.

I was talking about that small apertures generally are the major limit for the performance (resolution) of macro lenses. This gets worse with increasing magnification.

[vivek iyer]

Walter, Quite a few get ticked off if they hear the word, "resolution". Yes, you are quite right.

 

Arnab, I can't comment on the Tamrons or Sigmas as I do not have them.

 

I did come across a couple of the "third party"lenses (one in Nikon F mount, the Vivitar Ser.1 90mm f/2.5) recently that has made me realize that micronikkors were not the sharpest lenses made for Nikon F mount.