I have the Sigma 105 2.8 and an older Nikkor 105 2.8 Micro D (non-VR). IMO, the Nikkor is far superior optically. I chose the older Nikkor over the newer VR version after reading dozens reviews. I never shoot macro without a tripod, and the VR just seemed like overkill (and over-priced). The Sigma is a nice lens, but in a side-by-side comparison, the bokeh of the Nikkor is much more pleasing. Honestly, I haven't had the Sigma on my camera in months. I toss it in my backpack when I'm hiking and want to keep the gear weight down, but if I'm going out specifically to shoot marco, the Nikkor is my go-to. It is a bit heavy, and the AF will hunt a bit on the rare occasions I turn it on, but the image quality is just gorgeous.<div></div>
setup questions
in Nikon
Posted
Hi Karen,
I have the Sigma 105 2.8 and an older Nikkor 105 2.8 Micro D (non-VR). IMO, the Nikkor is far superior optically. I chose the older Nikkor over the newer VR version after reading dozens reviews. I never shoot macro without a tripod, and the VR just seemed like overkill (and over-priced). The Sigma is a nice lens, but in a side-by-side comparison, the bokeh of the Nikkor is much more pleasing. Honestly, I haven't had the Sigma on my camera in months. I toss it in my backpack when I'm hiking and want to keep the gear weight down, but if I'm going out specifically to shoot marco, the Nikkor is my go-to. It is a bit heavy, and the AF will hunt a bit on the rare occasions I turn it on, but the image quality is just gorgeous.<div>
</div>