Sigma 150mm Macro on Nikon?

[fiona_zhang]

I'm new to Macro photography, and is considering to get Nikkor AF

105mm or Sigma 150mm Macro, since both match my budget. There are

many good reviews of the Sigma 150mm, but all by Canon users. Have

any Nikon users tried the Sigma 150mm lens? My camera is D70 to be

specific. Thanks.

[lex_jenkins]

First of all, I've never heard from anyone who regretted buying the 105mm Micro-Nikkor, whether in manual focus or AF clothing. And based on the photos I've seen, it really is that good.

 

Among the Big Three third party makers (including Tokina and Tamron - Vivitar is pretty much out of the picture for serious folks), Sigma lenses sometimes get a bad rap, often unfairly. They've made some crappy lenses which has undermined the company's rep.

 

Actually, the better Sigmas I've handled felt solid as a tank, as well made as any top quality Nikkor. If anything some of 'em are *too* heavy. You almost wish they'd use a little more polycarbonate instead of metal.

 

Optically, I dunno. Never bought one. But the better ones get good reviews from credible people. I don't see any reason why a particular model in a Canon mount should perform any differently in a Nikon mount.

 

And, FWIW, I was >this< close to buying a Sigma zoom for my new D2H instead of the 18-70 DX Nikkor kit zoom. The Sigma was only a little more expensive and had an f/2.8 maximum aperture throughout the focal range. The B&H sales guy I bought from owns this lens and really likes it, but he didn't try to pressure me into buying anything other than what I wanted. (Gotta love them B&H folks.) Unfortunately the Sigma didn't have the equivalent to Nikon's AF-S and I really wanted to try on that SWM to evaluate how quick and quiet it is. It's definitely quick and quiet.

 

You should also ask folks who've owned or tried either lens you're interested in how they handle in manual focus mode. Macrophotography isn't always conducive to autofocus so manual focus feel is important - the focus ring should have smooth travel with good damping to keep it from being twitchy. Any lens without some resistance to focusing effort is almost impossible to focus precisely by hand.

[michelle a.]

I'm quite happy with my Sigma EX 105mm. Much of my work is macro, and I've used this lens with my D70 as well as my N90S..... Autofocus when working in close proximity to an object can be a challenge, and so I prefer manual focus. It's also worked well for me as a portrait lens.

 

It's my understand that the Sigma EX 105 is also new and improved.... I have the older model.

 

I have never used the Nikon 105 so I cannot compare the two. But I also know many other users of the Sigma lens who are also quite pleased with their investment.

[mark_chappell]

Optically I'd guess both were excellent (nearly all macro lenses are), but your intended use

may be more of a factor in making the decision. If you want to photograph skittish things

(butterflies, lizards....), the go with the 150, which will give you more working distance.

[michelle a.]

Guess I misunderstood and transposed the numbers when reading.... I thought you were comparing the two 105 macros.... sorry!

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

Fiona,

If you can afford a 105 Nikkor, then get it. It is the sharpest lens that Nikon ever made. Don't buy Generic Brand because of resale value, slower AF, etc. Although the optic quality might not be that different, you pay for what you get (SPEED, ACCURATE, AND METAL).

[brian_tilley1]

Kelvin, I agree that the Nikkor 105mm is a great lens. However, AF speed would not be one of the reasons to choose it over the Sigma 150mm EX Macro. The Sigma has HSM and is likely to be faster focusing than the Nikkor. The Sigma also has a tripod collar, which is useful in keeping the lens/camera balanced and simplifying portrait orientation shots.

[vivek iyer]

I have the 105mm f/4 Nikkor, manula focus lens. It is alright. The Vivitar Ser.1 90mm f/2.5 (MF, again) is so much better than the micronikkor, optically as well as build quality wise.

 

I have tried the 105mm f/2.8 Micronikkor and will NEVER buy one of those, it isn't all that great optically and it annoyingly changes its focal length while close focusing.

 

I have not used the Sigma 150mm f/2.8. I am seriously considering buying one. I am impressed with its specs and the samples I have seen from it.

 

If you are very keen on buying a micronikkor, consider the 60mm f/2.8 or the 200mm f/4 ED AFD or the 70-180mm zoom micro or the 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro. The 105mm lens is not all that great compared to the rest.

[lex_jenkins]

This must be National Disagree With Kelvin Day. Mark your calendars.

 

Resale value should be a pretty low consideration when buying photo equipment. It isn't an investment. Observe the market for b&w processing and printing equipment. All of it takes a giant dump as soon as we get our nose grease on it.

 

Buy what you like, want, need. Buy what's best for your purposes.

 

I happen to *like* my Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/2.8-4 AI-S. All sixty bucks worth, pawn shop. And every time I'm tempted to consider selling it, I'm reminded that I would probably get twenty bucks for it. And then I'm reminded of what a good lens it is. So I keep it, shoot with it and enjoy it.

[charles_sullivan]

Fiona:

 

I use the new Sigma 105mm macro with my Nikon D70 for macro photography of wild flowers and insects. I can attest that the lens produces wonderfully sharp images. I have also begun using it as a portrait lens as well. In my experience it is a superb lens that works well with the D70, light in weight and affordably priced. It rarely comes off my camera any more.

 

Charles Sullivan

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Lex, Lex, Lex...

 

What am I to do about you? My Kiron 105mm f/2.8, goes 1:1 without any adapters of any kind, is better built and sharper than my Nikkor 105mm macro. Also, the older Vivitar Series 1 105mm f2.5, was made by Kiron, for Vivitar, and is a copy of the phenomenal Kiron 105 macro. I love my Nikons, but the Kiron 105 macro and the Viv Series 1 90mm f2.5 (Tokina made)blow away the Nikon equivalents. And they are much cheaper.

 

Russ

[vivek iyer]

Lex, I do know the specs and the performances of the 105mm f/2.8 micronikkor and the 90mm f/2.5 Viv Ser.1. There is absolutely no match.

 

Value of the 90mm f/2.5 at the moment is in the range of $100 to 150.

Would that not be a good price to start with? I really do not think this value is going to go down!

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Lex

 

Vivek is correct. The Viv S-1 90mm f/2.5, is considerably better than the Nikkor 105mm macro. As is the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro. The Kiron version also goes 1:1 without any adapters or filters of any kind.

 

Russ

[fiona_zhang]

Thanks a lot for all the answers .. after reading all of your valuable comments, please allow me to summarize:

 

- sounds like people haven't yet tried the new Sigma 150mm much

 

- Nikkor 105mm probably has a big quality range - how else to explain such a difference in opinion?

 

- 3rd party lens could be as good as Nikkor - maybe I just need to make sure to get a good copy?

 

 

I'm leaning towards the Sigma 150mm now .. however Sigma catalog says diaphragm is not round for Nikon mount .. does this matter?

 

About walking distance .. how does it work? I've seen photos taken with Nikkor 105 extremely up close, but when I tried a friend's Nikkor 105, I couldn't get the same closeness or magnification .. Do people generally use extension tubes or close up lens with Macro lnes?

 

thanks a lot.

[lex_jenkins]

Russ, I'd love to have a Kiron macro. But they're not exactly common as french fries. I've never actually seen one, tho' I've seen several Kirons.

 

This forum is the only place I've ever heard allegations that the 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkors aren't good performers. I've seen portraits made by pros that definitely indicate otherwise - it appears to be an outstanding lens for closeups. It may not be a particularly good lens at far distances, but that's fairly representative of many macros. They're designed for close up photography, not for wildlife at or near infinity focus.

 

Fiona, the problem with extension tubes is the loss of light and effective lens speed. Unless you start out with an f/2.8 or faster lens you'll find it difficult to focus when using extension tubes manually, and few AF cameras can autofocus well with maximum apertures of f/5.6 or slower.

 

Also, extension tubes are only as good as the lens used on 'em. A macro lens is corrected to minimize field curvature - which is generally visible only on flat or linear object. Not much problem with bugs and blossoms.

 

I have "real" macro lenses but occasionally use close up diopters - the things that screw into the filter threads - on my Olympus gear, especially the 75-150/4 Zuiko. The results are nearly as good as what I get from my 50/3.5 Zuiko Macro and 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor on most objects.

 

So if you wish to compromise, I'd suggest good quality close up diopters over extension tubes. There's no light loss. But don't pinch the pennies too hard - cheap close up diopters tend toward edge softness and some chromatic aberration, which can sometimes be visible but not always. Depends on the object being photographed, available light, etc. Doublets, close up diopters made using two lenses cemented together to help correct chromatic aberration and other distortions, are the best. But they aren't cheap and aren't easy to find in all filter thread sizes. The only one I have is a Zuiko made for the Olympus ZLR system, tho' it works just fine in any 49mm filter thread. My single element Olympus close up diopter is nearly as good. My Vivitar diopters aren't so good. One of the Vivitars has so much spherical aberration it's more useful for creative softness than for "serious" macrophotography.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Lex

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not at all bashing the Nikkor 105 macro. It's a great lens. I am just saying that the Kiron 105 macro, is better. If you really want to try one, I'll gladly send one your way for you to give a test drive.

 

Russ