Sigma 150mm f2.8 on the Nikon D300

[mark amy]

Hello,<br><p>

 

I've been toying between the above Sigma lens and the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR and after much research I've decided

on the Sigma lens because I want that extra distance from subject.<br><p>

 

I was wondering if there is anyone here who has the D300 and uses or has used the Sigma 150mm and how do they get

on with the combination? I'm just curious because the Sigma doesn't have VR, and even though I know VR isn't

recommended for macro work with a tripod, I was wondering if the Sigma was well suited to the D300 for its faster

auto-focusing system and the ability to use higher ISOs, which would enable faster shutter speeds and make up for

the lack of VR.<br><p>

 

I'd also like to know if most people also buy the Sigma 1.4 teleconverter as I am thinking about getting that

too? I think it was in the Photozone review that I read it reduced the image quality from "excellent" to "very

good", which sounds pretty good to me:)<br><p>

 

Thanks,<br>

Mark

[malcolm_farrow]

Mark, VR is designed to help remove hand shake so if you plan to use the D300 on a tripod, the 150mm Sigma is a fine choice and won't give any disadvantage compared to the Nikon. What it won't do is prevent any blur caused by the subject moving, only a fast shutter speed or flash will solve that.

 

You don't mention what kind of subject you plan to shoot and this would be helpful to know. If you plan on working at 1:2 or closer (i.e. shooting really small things, or very close up) a tripod is the only really practical way to go. However, I do a lot of dragonfly and butterfly photography and rarely work closer than 1:2 and find that, for these subjects mobility is just as important, if not more so, than stability. Contrary to what many people will tell you, it's possible to hand hold the camera successfully for a lot of close up (as opposed to true macro) photography and for this technique, the Nikon 105mm VR AFS is the perfect lens - at least until Nikon bring out their new 180mm VR AFS macro (please Nikon, are you listening?) .

 

Many of my friends use the 150mm Sigma for the same sort of subjects I shoot, and do so with great success - it's clearly an excellent lens. However, most use at least a monopod for support which restricts their mobility and I'm often amazed that they get as many good pictures with their more cumbersome set-up. I guess it demands a different mind set and way of working. I've tried it briefly and it is possible to hand hold the Sigma successfully, but you need plenty of light or you percentage of keepers will go down substantially. You probably need a minimum of 1/250 second to stand any chance of success

 

With the D300, I normally work at between ISO 200 and 400, set the lens at F10-16, and use the cameras auto focusing system. You can see samples of my work on my website if you're interested, and there's an insect photography FAQ as well, some of which might be applicable, depending what you plan to photograph. Finally, I'd steer well clear of teleconverters for macro work, but that's just my opinion, others may have other views.

 

Hope this is helpful.

[mark amy]

Hi Malcolm,

 

Thanks very much for taking the time with such a thorough reply! I also looked at your website and your FAQ and found it all very helpful. You have some gorgeous images! Coincidentally, one of the first ones I looked at, I also saw in a thread earlier today on the DPReview forums and the first time I saw it there, I thought "Wow! that's the kind of picture I want to take!"

 

I didn't think to add what I would be shooting in my original post, which of course would help. Definitely dragonflies and butterflies like yourself, and also bees, wasps, beetles and other insects...possibly unusual flowers and plants. I'm British, but live in China and insects over here are usually about 3 times the size of ones in the UK, not sure why...maybe it's the heat, but that is why I'm thinking I want to be as far away from them as possible :))

 

After reading what you wrote though and looking at your website, I'm still not 100% sure if the Sigma is the best way to go. I know the Nikkor 105mm is excellent, but would it give me enough working distance? I guess that comes down to how comfortable I am with how close I get to things!

 

I think as long as I had enough light then I could shoot at ISO 400 and f11 with pretty quick shutter speeds, although I'm not sure if they'd be fast enough. I definitely value mobility more over using a tripod so I can also see how VR would be useful.....uuummmmm dilemma!!!

 

Are Nikon really bringing out a 180mm VR macro lens? That would certainly be a solution for my predicament.

 

Mark

[frank]

Hi Mark

 

I've used the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR with my D300 and I possess and use the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro with my EOS 5D/40D. IMO the Sigma is an excellent lens for a very reasonable price. I recommend this macro lens very much. Because serious macro work can be done with a good tripod only (or at least a monopod), the VR option of the Nikkor was next to useless for me. (In theory the VR is a nice feature for hand-held macro shots, but in practice there is not only the shake of the hands but also the swaying back and forth, that can ruin the IQ. DOF is very shallow.) I didn't like the Micro-Nikkor VR because it's extremely bulky and heavy. Used with a tripod I miss a tripod mount. Here the non-VR Micro-Nikkor is the better lens. (I liked the VR-Nikkor for hand-held a portraits much better.)

The Sigma 150/2.8 Macro is built superbly, the removable tripod mount is solid, its HSM is fast and accurate and IQ is excellent. I never missed the VR feature. IMO the Sigma is the much better bang for the buck. I don't use the Sigma teleconverter with this lens but I use this converter with my Sigma 100-300/4. Yes, the tc is very good and its build quality is much better than from the comparable Kenko tc. Stopped down to f5.6 the image quality of the 100-300/4 plus Sigma tc 1,4x is extremely pleasing.

[mark amy]

Hi Frank,

 

Thanks very much for your reply. The more I read about the Sigma, the more I want it and from what you wrote, now I want it even more!! I have a couple more weeks before I go to HK so I'm sure my decision will go back and forth until then, but for now, I'm happy with the Sigma:)

 

Mark

[kaiyen]

I kind of regret selling my Sigma non-DG 105 2.8 (got the NIkon because my wife's shoulder requires the VR) and am hoping to have the 150 by the end of the year. So my macro work, along with moderate telephoto (hey - that's like a 180 2.8 Nikkor with HSM, or at least it gives it a run for its money) will be moving over the the 150. I don't know if that says anything, but I've sure researched the heck out of it and I want maximum versatility.

 

Even if you're shooting at 1:2 or so, the ability to go trip and _not_ be lying around the ground is nice...

[david_tolcher]

Hi, I have both lenses and you neednt worry about image quality from either. I use on a D300 currently but have used

also on a D2X. The lens I use most for insects (dragonflies & butterflies) / snakes is the Sigma. You cant substitute

having a bit of space from the subject, the focal length isnt so long that its an impediment for walk around macro

work (200mm is too long on DX cameras IMO). I have flirted with the Nikon 105mm VR and a 1.4 converter but the

resultant images arent as sharp.

<p> One aspect of the Sigma that isnt talked about is that it really does have a good balance between contrast and

sharpness. The nikkor is very contrasty and I tend to find I blow highlights easily and that the results can be harsher

than identical lighting with the sigma. I gave up photographing adders with the nikkor for this reason. It has lovely

bokeh, much nicer than the nikkor to my eye. Its the only non nikon lens I have bought and stayed with.

My website has some piccies taken with the respective lenses in the Natural History and Italy galleries.

<p>

www.davidtolcher.co.uk

<p>

Regards

[malcolm_farrow]

Thanks for your kind remarks, Mark, and I'm glad you found my website and comments interesting.

 

Looking at the exif data on my shots, many of them feature shutter speeds of over 1/200, so the Sigma might well

be fine, even for hand held work. After all, most insects are active in sunny weather, although it's worth

remembering that some species prefer the shade of woodland and shutter speeds can slip alarmingly in such

locations. Another consideration is that insects rarely position themselves conveniently. I always seem to be

bending or stretching awkwardly, often holding a difficult, uncomfortable pose for long periods. In such

circumstances, camera shake is more likely and VR can again be an asset.

 

The attached photo illustrates my point. On the face of it, it's a simple shot, but it was taken on the side of a

steep slope. I was scrambling about, often kneeling or crawling, trying to keep my balance and at the same time

creep up on the butterflies. Once in position, I often had to wait, camera held ready, while the feeding insect

worked its way round the flower. only for a few seconds was it positioned so that I could get a good shot. The

weather was hazy, with little sunshine, but it was very hot and humid. Believe me, even though it was fantastic

fun, after a couple of hours of intensive shooting, fatigue can start to set in and, again, VR might come to the

rescue. I guess my point is that nature seldom makes life easy for the photographer and I like to take advantage

of any technology that will help me get the picture I want. Often VR isn't necessary, but when it is, it might

make all the difference and mean you get a really exceptional shot. For me, that's enough to make it worth having.

 

I would also add that working distance is something that many people get too hung up over. I find stalking

subjects to be part of the fun and with patience and practice, many subjects can be approached successfully. On a

DX camera, the 105mm behaves somewhat like a 158mm lens on full frame camera, so it isn't really that short in

reality.

 

For the record, the butterfly is a Chalkhill Blue and the exposure was 1/160 at F11 at ISO 250. By the way, as

far as I know there's no indication that a Nikon 180mm VR AFS micro might be on the way, but the current 200mm

micro must be due for an upgrade soon, and I'd buy one immediately were the Nikon gods were to hear my prayers -

as I can certainly think of situations when the extra reach would be useful.<div></div>

[mark_firley]

I use my 150mm Sigma with the Nikon R1 Wireless Close-Up Speedlight Flash System with the D80 and D300 in

Commander mode. I have gotten phenomenal results with bugs, flowers and other small things.

 

Another Mark

[mark amy]

Thanks to everyone for your replies!

 

David, like Malcolm, you also have some wonderful pictures on your website, and seeing them makes me even more

imaptient to get a proper dedicated macro lens.

 

Malcolm, that's a gorgeous picture of the Chalkhill Blue, the colours in its wings and body are truly beautiful!

I imagine that with all the effort it took to capture the image, you must have been really satisfied once you had!

 

One thing I meant to ask yesterday regards live-view. Does anyone with the D300, or other macro shooters with

cams that have live-view, find that it helps with macro shots or is best to use the viewfinder? I'm just

wondering if it would make it easier to position the cam for those awkward angles or does the weight of the

camera and lens held at odd angles cause even more camera shake?

 

I'm also doing more research on lighting as I have the SB600, and I know Malcolm recommends the Lumiquest soft

diffuser on his website, so I'm going to try and get one of those.

 

I thought I'd share a picture I took of the kind of insects I intend to take pictures of. This is the Long-eared

Asian Beetle and it was taken with just the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 lens. I took it at f2.8 with a shutter speed of

1/2000 because at the time I was primarily thinking about sharpness over depth of field, but thinking about it

now and after all I've read, I really should have experimented with different f stops and shutter speeds to get

the best depth of field.

 

That's strange, I can't find the option to link a picture or add an attachment...I'll try again in a separate post.<div></div>

[david_tolcher]

Thks Mark, I have used liveview on the D300 - but only once when I couldnt get as low as I needed the camera to be

so I couldnt use the viewfinder. I feel so much more 'in touch' with the subject using the vf and that for hitting the

decisive

moment you need to feel 'in touch'.

<p> Agree that working distance is a subject of many opinions. My own experience with DX is that for field work

50/60mm - too short for most work, 90/105mm - OK but your stalking skills need to be first rate and for some

subjects you need to be lucky, 150mm - OK but sometimes gives too much working distance for tight spots (e.g. a

mid size butterfly flat on a bush at waist height would need a 7ft man to get far enough away for a 'top down' shot),

200mm - too long for most work. If the 105 & 1.4x TC had been satisfactory for me then I would probably have stuck

with that.

<p>If you are primarily taking medium / big stuff then you may be OK with the 105 and a TC for occasional use.

<p>Nett conclusion is that you need both lenses :-)

[mark amy]

Thanks David.....for not making my decision any easier:)) Heck, I may as well chuck in a 60mm as well to cover all eventualities!!

 

Seriously though, I know what you're saying and it makes total sense, I just have to choose which way to go. It's a pity the TC on the 105mm doesn't produce better quality images....from what I've read anyway. I will research that a bit more.

[malcolm_farrow]

I completely agree with David's comments, particularly his thoughts on working distance (hence my wish for a longer Nikon macro lens with VR to compliment the 105).

 

Tough choice and only you can decide which would be your best option....