Nikon 105 Macro (non-VR) v.s. Sigma 105 Macro?

[Dejan80501]

I am seriously considering a 105mm macro lens, but need more info on the quality of images produced from these two lenses. There are price differences between the two lenses, as Sigma is approx $150 less than the refrenced Nikon.

Any thoughts?
--
Dejan Smaic

http://dejansmaic.smugmug.com

 

[Hauer]

Dejan, whilst the SIGMA is a good lens, the Nikon is definitely superior. I would perhaps even go so far as to say that I would place a third contender between the two be in 90mm Tamron.
Just my honest persoanl opinion for what its worth.
Good luck!

Cheers - Herman

------------
My motto: To learn more today, than I did yesterday!

Nikon D50 + Grip ~ Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D ~ Nikkor 105VR f/2.8 IF-ED Micro ~ Nikkor 18-200VR f/3.5-5.6G ~ Nikkor 70-200VR f/2.8G ED-IF ~ Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3DG HSM ~ TC-17E II ~ Nikon SB800 ~ B+W MRC filters ~ Vanguard Tracker III ~ Manfrotto 681B Monopod + 488RC2 ballhead ~ Sony DSC-S85 ~ Nikon CP3700 ~ Nikon P5000

 

[Cerumen]

I am seriously considering a 105mm macro lens, but need more info on
the quality of images produced from these two lenses. There are price
differences between the two lenses, as Sigma is approx $150 less than
the refrenced Nikon.

Any thoughts?
--

Hi Dejan,

The Nikon lens is built better and holds its value better. In terms of image quality, essentially, there are no bad macro lenses out there--at least, anything made in the last several years.

I have the Sigma--actually, I have the 105 and the 180 macro--and I'm very happy with both.

Good macro work, like all of photography, is much more dependent on execution and composition than it is on the subtle design differences between mainstream quality optics.
If interested, here are a bunch of macro images shot primarily with the 105:
http://www.pbase.com/cerumen/macro

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/cerumen
My website: http://www.insectography.com

 

[Boris]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query=nikon+105mm+f2.8+vr&page=1&fields=subject&forum=1030
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

 

[JJohn]

I too was trying to decide on a mid-range macro. How valuable do you find the VR for the Nikon? For me the decision was the Sigma 150 (for a bit more working room), the Nikon 105 VR, or the Tamron 90 (to save money).

Dejan, whilst the SIGMA is a good lens, the Nikon is definitely
superior. I would perhaps even go so far as to say that I would place
a third contender between the two be in 90mm Tamron.
Just my honest persoanl opinion for what its worth.
Good luck!

Cheers - Herman

------------
My motto: To learn more today, than I did yesterday!

Nikon D50 + Grip ~ Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D ~ Nikkor 105VR f/2.8 IF-ED
Micro ~ Nikkor 18-200VR f/3.5-5.6G ~ Nikkor 70-200VR f/2.8G ED-IF ~
Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3DG HSM ~ TC-17E II ~ Nikon SB800 ~ B+W MRC
filters ~ Vanguard Tracker III ~ Manfrotto 681B Monopod + 488RC2
ballhead ~ Sony DSC-S85 ~ Nikon CP3700 ~ Nikon P5000

 

[rhlpetrus]

What about other macro options?

Tks, Renato.

I am seriously considering a 105mm macro lens, but need more info on
the quality of images produced from these two lenses. There are price
differences between the two lenses, as Sigma is approx $150 less than
the refrenced Nikon.

Any thoughts?
--
Dejan Smaic

http://dejansmaic.smugmug.com

--
rhlpetrus
equipment in profile

 

[mothman13]

I don't know why the OP thinks the Sigma is only $150 less than the Nikon. At B&H, here are some (current) prices:

Sigma 105mm F/2.8 Macro $399
Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Macro $489 (and there's a $90 rebate right now)
Nikon 105mm F/2.8 VR Macro $739
Nikon 60mm F/2.8 Macro $400
Sigma 150mm F/2.8 Macro $599

Don't forget that Macro lenses make excellent fixed focal-length lenses. Pretty much, you can't go wrong with any Macro lens as they all give excellent results. Manufacturers really work at getting their Macro's right.

In 35mm camera terms, 70 to 120mm (generally) was used for portrait photography. the Nikon 60mm Macro is a nice lens and becomes the equivalent of a 90mm lens in the old 35mm terms, smack in the middle of the old portrait lens range.

Tamron's 90mm Macro is an excellent, mid-priced lens with a great reputation. I've used this lens and it handles very well and gives great sharpness, contrast and color. It is effectively a 135mm lens so just a bit over the normal portrait lens range.

The Sigma 105mm lens is again, an excellent lens and less expensive than the Tamron, but doesn't have as large a following or quite as good of a reputation. In 35mm terms it becomes 157mm so is well outside the "normal" portrait lens range.

The Nikon 105mm VR is a stellar lens, is AFS and includes built-in stabilization. Tops in Sharpness, color, contrast but by far the most expensive of the 90-105mm range macro lenses.

The Sigma 150mm Macro is a great lens that I'm currently using. It gives me more than double the working distance (distance between end of lens and object being photographed) of the 90-105mm range lenses, which is why I switched from the Tamron 90.

The 50-60mm lenses give excellent "normal" portrait range performace. The 90-105mm lenses give excellent head-and-shoulder portrait range performace and double as fast, short-range tele's. The Sigma 150mm lens can give great head-shot portraits and double (triple?) as a fast, mid-range tele for sporting events.

You really can't go wrong with any of the macro lenses for macro shots. What else you plan on shooting should help you decide on whether to get the 50-60mm lens, 90-105mm range lens or 150-200mm range lens.

Here are a few Macro shots, all taken with either the Tamron 90mm or the Sigma 150mm Macro:

http://www.pbase.com/mothman13/macros

You can also go here to see Field of View data for varying distances for varying mm focal lengths:

http://www.pbase.com/mothman13/image/74511515

Happy shooting,

--
Mothman13
http://www.pbase.com/mothman13

 

[Mike Neary]

I am seriously considering a 105mm macro lens, but need more info on
the quality of images produced from these two lenses. There are price
differences between the two lenses, as Sigma is approx $150 less than
the refrenced Nikon.

Any thoughts?

I have the Sigma 105 DG macro, and it's my sharpest lens. Very happy with the optical quality. If you look at any of the reviews on photozone.de, you'll see that there is very little difference in the performance of the macro lenses. You can pretty much choose on price, build quality, and features.

The Sigma has excellent build quality, better than its main rival, the Tamron 90. The biggest annoyance with the Sigma is its AF - it's slow and hunts a lot, and to switch from AF to MF you need to flip the switch on the camera AND move the focus clutch mechanism on the lens - that's a really lame design!

Over the older, non-AF-S/VR Nikkor I would choose the Sigma (or the Tamron). The older Nikkor does not offer any extra features and has identical optical quality while costing a lot more.

Personally, I'm currently considering an upgrade to the new 105 VR for the faster AF and VR. I'm also looking into the Sigma 150 HSM for the additional working distance. Can't make up my mind yet

Cheers

Mike

 

[Boris]

Hi Mike

Having not owned the Sigma 105 I can only compare my 105VR to my 135f2dc. I don't think the 105VR is any faster than my 135dc on my D200....it seems faster since you hear no noise but I don't think it is. The 105VR hunts more under dim light than the 135dc.
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

 

[JJohn]

Personally, I'm currently considering an upgrade to the new 105 VR
for the faster AF and VR. I'm also looking into the Sigma 150 HSM for
the additional working distance. Can't make up my mind yet

Basically, that is where I am too. I had an old Nikon 105 that was stolen. So to replace it, I was going to just stick with Nikon. I just don't know how useful the VR function of the Nikon would be. For macro, I always use a tripod. Not sure how often I would grab this lens over the 70-200 for other jobs. I probably would not use it for a portrait lens.

The extra working room of the Sigma 150 would probably come in handy at times, as would the extra money saved if I got the Tamron 90. Tough decision but, probably no really wrong answer as all seem to be fine lenses.

 

[TheronFamily]

I don't know why the OP thinks the Sigma is only $150 less than the
Nikon. At B&H, here are some (current) prices:

mbe because he asked to exclude the VR version?

 

[mothman13]

Mike,

Youre right. Just about any Macro lens will give excellent Macro pictures. I've seen examples posted here from "no-name" $100 Macro lenses that look great. To me the different merits of each lens come out when you use the lens in a non-macro environment. If you plan on taking a number of hand-held, available light portraits, the Nikon VR should be right at the top of the list. If portraits will be taken on a tripod, that mitigates the benefits of the VR.

I had the Tamron 90mm and really liked it, including the quick and painless auto-to-manual clutch mechanism. I didn't like the fact that it changed length as you went towards Macro ranges and didn't like the short working distances. I sent the Tamron to my Dad to use with his Fuji S1 Pro and purchased the Sigma 150mm Macro. There is a very large difference in working distance that I really, really like. The lens doesn't change length at any focusing distance and is at least as sharp as was the Tamron. The Sigma is much heavier, but has a very smooth, long throw focus ring, so manually nailing that 1:1 Macro shot is no more difficult than with the Tamron. Auto-focus is virtually worthless at Macro range with the Sigma where with the Tamron you could do ok.

I always shot Macro shots hand-held, but with the Sigma they are all now manual focus as well.

I have the Nikon 35mm F/2, 50mm F1/8, 85mm F/1.8 and now the Sigma 150mm F/2.8 so I think I have a nice collection for any type of portraiture I may want to shoot, as well as relatively fast lenses for close to mid-distance sports I may end up shooting. That 150mm F/2.8 really fills a hole for sports I have no chance of shooting with my 70-300mm VR and that's really my point. For Macro shots, you can't go wrong no matter which Macro lens you choose, but you should choose your Macro lens based on what ELSE you'll use the lens for, not just for its Macro capabilities.

Happy shooting,

--
Mothman13
http://www.pbase.com/mothman13

 

[mothman13]

Ahhh. Missed that non-VR reference. Thanks for pointing it out!

One thing I hate more than being wrong is not having someone show me what is right. I really like accuracy.

--
Mothman13
http://www.pbase.com/mothman13

 

[Mike Neary]

Hi Mike
Having not owned the Sigma 105 I can only compare my 105VR to my
135f2dc. I don't think the 105VR is any faster than my 135dc on my
D200....it seems faster since you hear no noise but I don't think it
is. The 105VR hunts more under dim light than the 135dc.
Boris

Thanks Boris! I still believe the 105 VR focuses a lot faster than my Sigma 105. It won't be superfast just because macro lenses in general have that long focus throw mechanism that allows for very precise focusing. So I'm aware it won't beat my 70-200 VR for AF speed

But the 105 VR would give me faster AF, instant manual override without flipping 2 switches, VR at longer than 1:3 subject distance, and about 2 inches more working distance due to internal focusing. Maybe better bokeh on portrait shots, too... Sounds like a major upgrade to me!

On the other hand, the Sigma 150 HSM is cheaper, has a tripod mount, and another 2 inches of working distance. That's what makes this decision so hard...

I'm leaning towards the 105 VR because it's a little more versatile. The 150 HSM looks like a tripod bound lens most of the time, and I like to do some handheld shooting as well.

Cheers

Mike

 

[mothman13]

TheronFamily,

I REALLY love the variety of your shots. The focus, color, clarity and all-important framing of your shots are top-shelf. I'm still fighting the "point 'n shoot" mentality for all the pictures I take and draw inspiration from those that produce art, not just pictures. I'm more inclined to take something apart and put it back together to see how it works rather than just enyoy its beauty. Engineer VS Artist? Don't know, but I'm working on it.

Thanks for any and all criticisms, comments and of course, your artwork.

--
Mothman13
http://www.pbase.com/mothman13

 

[Mike Neary]

Personally, I'm currently considering an upgrade to the new 105 VR
for the faster AF and VR. I'm also looking into the Sigma 150 HSM for
the additional working distance. Can't make up my mind yet

Basically, that is where I am too. I had an old Nikon 105 that was
stolen. So to replace it, I was going to just stick with Nikon. I
just don't know how useful the VR function of the Nikon would be.
For macro, I always use a tripod. Not sure how often I would grab
this lens over the 70-200 for other jobs. I probably would not use
it for a portrait lens.

Yes, that's true. I have the 70-200 VR which takes superb portraits, so that's why I'm thinking of the Sigma 150 as a more dedicated macro lens.

However, I'm in the habit of not carrying the 70-200 if I don't anticipate using it. The 105 VR would make a nice lens when I'm just out walking around with my wife - I could grab some nice closeups as well as some quick portraits without carrying the heavy zoom along.

The extra working room of the Sigma 150 would probably come in handy
at times, as would the extra money saved if I got the Tamron 90.
Tough decision but, probably no really wrong answer as all seem to be
fine lenses.

No really wrong answer - that's why the decision is so tought

Cheers

Mike

 

[Mike Neary]

Mike,

Youre right. Just about any Macro lens will give excellent Macro
pictures. I've seen examples posted here from "no-name" $100 Macro
lenses that look great. To me the different merits of each lens come
out when you use the lens in a non-macro environment. If you plan on
taking a number of hand-held, available light portraits, the Nikon VR
should be right at the top of the list. If portraits will be taken
on a tripod, that mitigates the benefits of the VR.

Yes, but for handheld available light portraits I also have the 70-200 VR...

I just don't know if I can restrict my shooting style to tripod based macro shots. I know it gives better results, but that VR on the 105 VR looks like a nice feature for less than 1:1 closeups...

I had the Tamron 90mm and really liked it, including the quick and
painless auto-to-manual clutch mechanism. I didn't like the fact
that it changed length as you went towards Macro ranges and didn't
like the short working distances. I sent the Tamron to my Dad to use
with his Fuji S1 Pro and purchased the Sigma 150mm Macro. There is a
very large difference in working distance that I really, really like.

True, and that's the main argument for the 150. But compared to my Sigma 105, the Nikon 105 VR already improves working distance by 2 inches. The Sigma 150 would give me another 2 inches...

Then again, the 105 VR is probably more suited to chasing flying bugs that just won't keep still - a tripod won't get you those

The lens doesn't change length at any focusing distance and is at
least as sharp as was the Tamron. The Sigma is much heavier, but has
a very smooth, long throw focus ring, so manually nailing that 1:1
Macro shot is no more difficult than with the Tamron. Auto-focus is
virtually worthless at Macro range with the Sigma where with the
Tamron you could do ok.

Are you saying the Tamron 90 focuses faster than the Sigma 150 HSM ?
I would think the HSM would help focus speed...

I always shot Macro shots hand-held, but with the Sigma they are all
now manual focus as well.

I have the Nikon 35mm F/2, 50mm F1/8, 85mm F/1.8 and now the Sigma
150mm F/2.8 so I think I have a nice collection for any type of
portraiture I may want to shoot, as well as relatively fast lenses
for close to mid-distance sports I may end up shooting. That 150mm
F/2.8 really fills a hole for sports I have no chance of shooting
with my 70-300mm VR and that's really my point. For Macro shots, you
can't go wrong no matter which Macro lens you choose, but you should
choose your Macro lens based on what ELSE you'll use the lens for,
not just for its Macro capabilities.

Yeah, that's the problem - you really can't go wrong with any of these.

Cheers

Mike

 

[TheronFamily]

Ahhh. Missed that non-VR reference. Thanks for pointing it out!

lol, no worries, hopefully the OP can get one at his price mentioned.

One thing I hate more than being wrong is not having someone show me
what is right. I really like accuracy.

1. don't hate - it shines thru in your photography
2. always learn, we can never know enough
3. be wrong - it shows we are human after all.

philosophy 101 for the day

 

[TheronFamily]

TheronFamily,

I REALLY love the variety of your shots. The focus, color, clarity
and all-important framing of your shots are top-shelf. I'm still
fighting the "point 'n shoot" mentality for all the pictures I take
and draw inspiration from those that produce art, not just pictures.

sheesh, you humble me! nature provides the canvas, I just point this D50 thing at her

I'm more inclined to take something apart and put it back together to
see how it works rather than just enyoy its beauty. Engineer VS
Artist? Don't know, but I'm working on it.

as am I, it's a neverending challenge trying to get a fresh idea.

Thanks for any and all criticisms, comments and of course, your artwork.

I thank you for your honesty and your appreciation of Nature.

ps. it's Kevin, it says so in the signature line

 

[mothman13]

From Mike:
Are you saying the Tamron 90 focuses faster than the Sigma 150 HSM ?
I would think the HSM would help focus speed...

The Sigma with HSM focuses quicker and with less noise than does the Tamron. The first problem is that with increasing focal length, at Macro distances or when used as a conventional lens, any side-to-side / up-down / forward-backward motion is exagerated making it more difficult to hold the subject I'm trying to focus on within the range of the focus sensor.

The Sigma works fine when auto-focusing as a 150mm lens, but hunts like a demon most of the time when at or near 1:1. At least in my hands. I've never used a tripod in my admittedly short Macro shooting experience, so every shot is hand-held and now manual focus. What a luxury it would be (to me) to be able to set up the camera on a tripod with a pre-focused location. I have no gardens or other insect draws around my home so I occasionally go out "hunting" them.

I've lately been shooting all Macro shots with my SB800 mounted on the D80 (rather than with only available light) so I can shoot at higher aperture and speed, trying to get less motion blur and greater depth of field. VR would certainly help with motion blur whether using auto-focus or manual focus. I've tried extending one leg of my tripod and using it as a monopod, but haven't gotten better results than simply hand-held .... yet.

Good luck with whatever you go with,

--
Mothman13
http://www.pbase.com/mothman13