NIKON 105 2,8 MICRO vs. SIGMA 105 2,8 MICRO

[jurij_pivka]

HI!

 

I am thinking of buying a good micro lens for my Nikon F100, I have

seed that in some tests Sigma 105 2,8 micro was better than Nikon's

original 105 micro. Can anyone give me a hint, if Simga is really

better or should I go for Nikon anyway?

 

Thanks for Your help!

[jbq]

Keep in mind that many tests are made with lenses focused at infinity, which is usually not what you buy a macro lens for.

[ilkka_nissila]

Also, some tests are made at maximum magnification which is also not the most common in actual use. 1:5 would probably be a good compromise, or testing at several distances.

 

The Nikon has higher resale value, it has guaranteed compatibility in the system, and it's a good lens in every sense of the word. One of my favourites.

[elliot]

I have the Sigma and am satisfied with its performance. If you are considering Nikon's AF lens, it has close range correction, which might make it somewhat better. I have not used this lens, however. If you are considering the manual focus Nikon version, it only goes down to 1:2, while the AF version and the Sigma go down to 1:1. I have heard that the Sigma has not so great bokeh, but I really havent evaluated the results from this lens regarding that, so I can't comment on it. I havent really used this lens as a portrait lens anyway. I doubt its worth worrying about, as nothing has been atrocious enough to catch my eye and bug me.

[craig_bridge]

What do you mean Nikon's original 105 micro? There were pre-AI 105mm f/3.5 micros around in the 1960's that only went 1:2 and you needed 52mm of extension to get to 1:1.

 

If you are comparing the current Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AFD micro and the current Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro and the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SPAF, they are all good in the macro range. They all take different filter sizes which significantly affects the cost of twin/dual element diopters if you want to go beyond 1:1 magnification.

[BernardMiller]

I have used both versions--I once owned the Sigma, and now

have the Nikon 105 2.8 AFD.

 

The Sigma lens, besides being cheaper, is extremely sharp. As

good as, or perhaps better than, the Nikon version (I haven't

performed critical evaluations but, subjectively, this is certainly

the case).

 

As Elliot said, the Nikon has CRC. However, that means as you

focus closer, the effective focal length of the lens decreases.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but at maximum

magnification, isn't the Nikon somewhere just over 80 mm in

actuality?

 

As Craig said, too, there is a hassle with filter sizes if you go with

the Sigma: it has a 58 mm filter size, while the Nikkor, as with

many of Nikon's smaller lenses, takes a 52 mm filter.

 

I traded in the Sigma because its construction simply didn't feel

as solid as the Nikon (although of course the AF version is not

nearly so stoutly constructed as the MF versions). I tend to be a

little tough on my equipment--mostly due to clumsiness--so I

decided to switch over to the Nikkor, for that reason. Optically, I'm

not so sure it was a good idea; I was quite pleased with the

Sigma.

 

To sum up: if you don't abuse your equipment terribly (and I'm

not saying the Sigma was fragile; it just *felt* a little flimsy), you

aren't overly concerned about the interchangeability of filters, and

you want a great lens for a good price, don't hesitate to go with

the Sigma.

 

But both are indeed fine lenses.

[Palouse]

I have the Sigma and am rather happy with it. I don't use it as much as I should, but when I do I find it easy to use--it has an easy push-pull disconnect of autofocus, a deeply recessed front element (great protection, harder to clean (but you need to less often?), and I do believe it is a rather solid piece, though I have not tried the Nikon. I find it very useful as a portait lense too--I've been often called on to to make ID pictures of my daughters soccer teams. Can't comment on the bokkeh. I also use a Nikon 24-85 AF (2.8-4.0) which goes to 1:2 and has CFC. I find it useful for large flowers. I've been tempted by the Nkon zoom macro which seems to be a good compromise.

Hope that helps.

[leif_goodwin8]

The Nikon is optically pretty good, and mechanically pretty good. Except the aperture ring. I find it impossible to set an aperture as the aperture stops are too indistinct. I think this has appeared since I bought the lens. I have heard others have this problem too. I suspect it is because Nikon do not pay attention to the aperture ring since they think you will use a modern autofocus camera which sets the aperture from the body. So why do they sell manual cameras then?

[ShunCheung]

Nikon sells manual cameras because there are still a lot of MF fans, but Nikon's main focus is AF and especially digital in these days. I have the 105mm/f2.8 AF (non-D) macro and its aperture ring is just fine. However, since you have an F100 body, most likely you'll be controlling the aperture from the body's sub-command dial anyway.

 

As you get close to 1:1, the effective focal length shortens and the effective maximum aperture decreases. You get more precise aperture control from the body anyway and the body electronics will display the actual effective aperture.

[amy_hoy]

You might want to consider the Tamron SP 90 Macro. When I was shopping for a mild

telephoto macro lens that went down to 1:1 unaided, it came out top dog. I've had it

for two years now and shot lots of macros and even regular shots with it, and I just

LOVE it. It's sharp as a tack, has wonderful bokeh, and is very affordable on the used

market (I paid about $260 for it). I have the AF model with the Nikon mount, not the

non-AF one with the interchangable mounts.

 

I thought I'd never buy a third-party lens, but the quality is so good that it's become

my favorite lens.

[rosty_vygovsky]

I would vote for Tamron SP 90 2.8 Macro AF too. Very sharp lens at all apertures and all focusing distances, beautiful bokeh, light and sturdy design. Could double therefore as a medium telephoto portrait lens. AF speed on my N90 and N90s is very fast, no hunting whatsoever. Give it a try...

[doug_wickens]

I've owned the Sigma 105 2.8 Micro for nearly 2 years now and I'm quite satisfied with it.

It has 3 minor faults:

1) the poor design of the push/pull to go between manual and autofocus

2) the lens hood was designed by someone on drugs - its inconvenient as its huge and metal and I dont use it.

3) The lens tends to hunt on autofocus with my F100 - not serious but its a annoyance.

 

Its reasonably sharp after f5.6 and the build quality of the lens is good - at least as good as some Nikons I own.

 

I wouldnt hesitate to recommend this lens.