Sigma 150 macro vs. Nikon 70-200

[josephwalsh]

Presently I am shooting butterflies and other insects with my Nikon 70-200 VR and a Canon 500D close up lens. As

the lens performs worst on the long end, I set the zoom around 150mm. Not only does the lens perform well there, I

like this focal length on a FF camera. Usually shoot handheld f8 - f11 on a Nikon D700. Often use fill flash w/ an

SB800.

 

To me, the results look pretty good but I have no other set up with which to compare. My question is, would I see an

IQ improvement with the specialized Sigma macro? Would the Sigma offer some other advantage?

 

Insect photography is only a minor aspect of my photographic pursuits. Thus, a small, incremental improvement that

might be worth $650 to some would not be so for me. OTOH, a significant difference would be. (I know, how far

is "incremental"? How high is "significant"? ;-)

 

Optical difference aside, I also wonder if I would like to give up the VR... I can hear that puppy grinding away quite a

bit while shooting. The ability to shoot sharp, hand-held macros at 1/125 is appealing. (and amazing)

 

What say you?

[alex_lofquist]

While I have the 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor, it definitely is not a macro lens. I think that you need something like the mentioned Sigma or 200 mm Micro Nikkor for their better working distance. If getting close to butterflies is not a problem, you might wish to consider the expensive 85mm tilt/shift Micro Nikkor which will allow you to get near and far portions of the wings in focus simultaniously.

[bruce_margolis]

Joe, it really is difficult to compare two lenses that are for totally different purposes even though they share a focal length. In fact, that's almost all they have in common.

 

The 70-200 weighs over 3 lbs, has a minimum focusing distance of about 5 ft, and uses a 1:6 magnification. To me, a macro lens works best on a tripod so VR is no help there. The 150 macro weighs about 2 lbs, requires only about 15 inches, and is a real 1:1 macro.

 

If you want a real macro, the 70-200 is not the lens for it. If you don't mind compromising a bit, a close up lens setup might work for you even if you don't have the 1:1 you get with macro. Try it and if not satisfied with the results, think about renting (or borrowing) the 150 macro and test drive it yourself.

[josephwalsh]

Alex, the 85TS an interesting idea. Getting the body, head and 2 wings in focus is not possible with a conventional lens unless the subject is parallel to the camera sensor.And then it looks like a laboratory specimen.

85 is short for the D700 but would probably work well on a DX format camera.

 

Another significant difference has occurred to me: The Sigma is only 5.4 inches long, with a deeply recessed front element, obviating the need for a lens hood unless using filters.

The Nikon, OTOH, is 11.5" with the hood (which I always use with this lens) making the Nikon more than twice as long as the Sigma.

 

Thus, at any given magnification the front of the Sigma lens will be 6" further away from the subject. A very good thing.

 

 

Bruce, as noted, I'm currently using a Canon 500D with "pretty good" results.

I'm in the middle of posting pics to Photo.net...perhaps you'll drop by for a critique. I'd appreciate it.

Can't tell much off the screen, of course. I have printed a few to 17x22 that hold up well.

 

Bottom line is your good advice, Bruce: I'm going to have to rent or borrow and see for myself.

[allan_jamieson2]

I bought a used Sigma 150mm macro earlier this year, which I unfortunately had to return to the seller, because of some undisclosed

damage to the lens front element. However, in the short time that I used it with my D80, I was very impressed by its pin sharp images. If

you need a bit of extra reach, it is a very good quality lens, which I would have no hesitation in recommending to anyone keen on macro

photography. As for the VR on the Nikon lens, it would be nice to have that, but I always take macro pics with my camera on a Benbo

Trekker tripod, which really makes a big difference from trying to handhold a non VR lens. Speaking personally, I prefer using prime lenses

in any case and also have the Sigma 50mm, 70mm and 105mm macro lenses; each one of which is very good optically both close up in

macro mode and at infinity for landscapes. I could well be tempted by another Sigma 150mm or perhaps even the 180mm version in the

future.

[jay a. frew]

Hello Joe:

 

I am in a similar position: shooting hand-held close-ups with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no stabilizer) with the 500D

(which I figure is excellent). I also use an EF85 f/1.8 with extension tubes (the Kenko set), but, usually from

a tripod + focusing rail.

 

For those who may not know, the Canon 500D is a multiple-element, close-up adapter which reduces the minimum

focus distance of the lens to 500mm. Canon also makes a 250D for shorter focal length lenses.

 

I find the Sigma 150 macro interesting as well and I think it may be just right for my crop camera (40D).

 

However, I do find that the zoom capability of the 70-200 helps with hand-held framing/composition and I also

like the versatility I get on outings with that one zoom lens, a 1.4 Tele Converter and a Close-up adapter. I

look forward to

getting a Sigma 150 and comparing it with my existing kit.

 

If you are in the USA, you can rent the Sigma, for 10 days, for US80.00 (including return shipping) from these folks:

 

http://www.lensrentals.com

 

I live in Canada, so, I only have the opportunity to rent when I visit the US (and I do so on each visit). I

have rented from lensrentals.com several times (as recently as early Oct) and I can highly recommend them. I plan to

rent the Sigma 150 macro from them on my next visit.

 

Cheers! Jay

[josephwalsh]

Thanks for that rental information and link, Jay.

That's exactly what I need to do.

 

A 1.4 converter w/ 200mm on a crop format...? that WILL let you reach out, won't it!

 

Regards,

JW<div></div>

[josephwalsh]

Ack! Wrong batch. Looks way over processed on my office monitor.

J

[sandysocks]

Just because your zoom is not good at 200mm, is no reason to assume that there would be anything wrong with a 200 or 180mm macro. Longer lenses mean more captures and better backgrounds.

[josephwalsh]

RL,

 

..."no reason to assume..."

Huh? I don't.

 

J

[mwaks]

Have you considered using a 25mm extension tube with your 70-200 Nikon? I found it worked well with my 70-300 canon lens when I went to a live butterfly exhibit. You would probably get more keepers that way then trying to get up close to skittish butterfly's with a macro lens.

[josephwalsh]

Michael,

I'm using my 70-200 at 150mm so image magnification is same as 150mm Sigma.

Canon 500D allows me to get plenty close.

I do, however, have a Nikon M2 1-1 macro tube which is as you describe.

Thanks for the comments.

J

[marco_p1]

Joe, I am afraid the very old M2 tube is not compatible with your G-type 70-200. No original nikon tubes for G-type lenses, sorry. I have used 2 elements closeups similar to yours and the results are actually surprisingly good, also the ability to frame by zooming is a big plus at times. A true, dedicated macro will probably offer more magnification and better performances optically at close up range: usually no distorsion and a flat field for reproduction work, or a constant performance right into the corners which is usually the problem with our achromat diopters. But do you need those refined performances? For example, I doubt that insect images similar to your butterfly shot would be dramatically better. And a dedicated telemacro takes some important space in your backpack, maybe you'd have to leave the 70-200 at home. Bye, Marco

[josephwalsh]

Right you are, Marco. I use the M2 with my 55Micro and 105 f2.5. I was unclear about that.

 

Thanks for addressing my original post. I tend to believe you are correct. For my purposes and for the reasons you have indicated, the 70-200 (which I already have) and the 500D is probably all I need.

 

OTOH, Jay and Bruce have good advice as well: "Try it." I may rent one just for fun and to see for myself.