Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma -vs- Nikon macro lenses... ready to buy!

Go to last post
After bringing my D70 and SB-800 to B&H to test macro lens performance, I've made my decision: the Nikon 105 is appreciably sharper than the Sigma 150 for close-up work in the neighborhood of 1:1.

The following 2 pictures are about 50-60% jpeg'ed crops of NEF shots that were not quite 1:1, but in that range. They were both taken at f/22, 1/60sec with the SB-800. All PP was identical to both images (with the exception of a little more Exp. Comp. in ACR 3.0 given to the Sigma, because it came out a bit darker... )

I took several shots with each lens at different apertures and magnifications, but I chose these two to illustrate the results somewhat arbitrarily, as the superiority of the Nikon was consistent. Granted, it may be difficult to see the detail in the compressed jpegs posted below, but a 100% magnification of the originals was VERY convincing to me...

Sigma 150:



Nikon 105:



Clearly these are both great lenses, from 2 terrific manufacturers.

Thanks to everyone who owns a Nikon/Sigma macro lens for posting pics and opinions, and helping me narrow down my choice.

--
  • Aaron
 
The sigma is a nice lens, and if I never used the nikkor 60 or 105 I would probably be convinced it was very sharp. But, I do own the nikkors also, and having used both... the Sigma has this really slight blur to the photos taken at or near 1:1. As a telephoto it's razor sharp, but in the macro department it aint perfect. I browsed through the galleries at Pbase and found very few of any truly sharp photos that came out of the Sigma 150.

Tele



Macro

Macro
http://imageevent.com/escofch/macro?p=67&n=1&m=16&c=3&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=4
 
I've seen some good looking macros from the Sigma 105 - yours included, Julio. I would personally just rather stick with Nikon when there are comparable options... as long as I can afford it, that is!

--
  • Aaron
 
The photo shop near my home has a 200mm Nikon Macro f/4 that someone traded in. It's on their used rack. I looked long and hard at that lens. Thought about it long and hard. Didn't take it today, but I may go back in the morning.

Anyone know if there are a number of versions of this lens or anything I would look out for?

Julio
 
arobacker said:
I've seen some good looking macros from the Sigma 105 - yours
included, Julio. I would personally just rather stick with Nikon
when there are comparable options... as long as I can afford it,
that is!
Click to expand...
why is that?
I'd like to point you here:

http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Primes/Sigma/PRD_83578_3111crx.aspx#reviews

from the very first review there: "I have used the 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor in the past. I feel that the Sigma lens is superior to that lens in all respect even taking into account the hunting issue."

or anotherone who ones both: "The images I have made with this lens have been outstanding and definitely hold par with its Nikon equivalent, which costs twice as much."

Greetz
Y

--
-------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/ypsilon
 
Hi Julio,
Loansharkx said:
What's wrong with the 105 Sigma?
Click to expand...
Nothing much, actually, besides one thing, and that is very sloooooow AF. I have missed many nice bug pics thanks to that fact. Otherwise, it's great lens and I have managed to catch many nice closeups (most of my macro pics http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/macro&page=all were shot using this lens) as well as some tele shots:

http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/image/31004899 http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/image/31004956 http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/image/31005008 .

However, when Sigma 150 arrived and was tried, I let 105 away with no second thoughts.
Best regards, Miljenko
--
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko
http://www.fotomag.net
http://www.wikiphoto.net
Who dies with most toys, wins.
 
There is MF and AF versions, the AF being the better as I understand. There is also a medical version, probably not what most of us would want.

--
regards
Mike Parker
Frederick, MD
 
You shoot 2 different focal length lenses and you shoot the Sigma 150 at f22.

It has been widely reported that the Sigma 150 is not much good at f22.

Compare 2 lenses both 105mm else you are comparing 2 very different things.

What I see in your 2 pics is different DOF and the Sigma f22 quality, nothing new here.
 
dreadock said:
The sigma is a nice lens, and if I never used the nikkor 60 or 105
I would probably be convinced it was very sharp. But, I do own the
nikkors also, and having used both... the Sigma has this really
slight blur to the photos taken at or near 1:1. As a telephoto it's
razor sharp, but in the macro department it aint perfect. I browsed
through the galleries at Pbase and found very few of any truly
sharp photos that came out of the Sigma 150.
Click to expand...
Show us YOUR samples of the Sigma 150 and the Nikkor 150 at 1:1 so I can see this bad performance at 1:1.

Both lenses 150mm f2.8, OK?

I may have to crush my Sigma 150 :-)
dreadock said:
Tele



Macro

Macro
http://imageevent.com/escofch/macro?p=67&n=1&m=16&c=3&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=4
Click to expand...
 
I could be wrong here, but it's my understanding that the DOF differences related to focal length are off-set by the adjustments in subject-to-lens-distance for 1:1 macro lenses of different different sizes... In other words, the DOF works out to be about the same when you move a shorter macro lens closer to still achieve 1:1 magnification.

As for the Sigma 150 being inferior at f/22 - that's exactly why I decided that it's not for me! As I've said, what I really want is a dedicated macro lens, optimized for 1:1 at small apertures.

I know that my comparison was between different things. (It really wasn't my goal to compare the 105 Nikon and 105 Sigma; between the 2, I already know that I prefer the Nikon.) I just wanted to see if the Sigma 150 was noticeably less sharp than the Nikon 105 at 1:1... mission accomplished!

I still think the Sigma 150 is a great lens though. I've seen some very impressive shots from it - your included... which is what made this a tough decision.
Wally OZ said:
You shoot 2 different focal length lenses and you shoot the Sigma
150 at f22.

It has been widely reported that the Sigma 150 is not much good at
f22.

Compare 2 lenses both 105mm else you are comparing 2 very different
things.

What I see in your 2 pics is different DOF and the Sigma f22
quality, nothing new here.
Click to expand...
--
  • Aaron
 
Faster focus.
Consistency in filter size with other Nikkors.

And the fact that OEM lenses are optimized for that manufacturer's particular camera line... I know, I know, this one is very arguable, and that's why I only list this as my opinion - nothing scientific.
ypsilon said:
just being curious: For what did you prefer the nikon?

Greetz
Y

--
-------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/ypsilon
Click to expand...
--
  • Aaron
 
Are you answering for me, Julio? If so, I think I just answered the question for myself.

As far as I'm concerned, a label is only as good as what's underneath it. Quit trying to justify your own purchases and allow others their own preferences...
Loansharkx said:
probably the label.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry about answering for you, No reason to get testy.

Nikon's 105 Macro is a 52mm filter size. What others in the Nikon lineup are consistent with that size? The 50mm f/1.8 would be about it. It goes to 62mm, 67mm, 77mm from there. There may be one 58mm in there, but I'm not sure.

Color consistency? Come on...

If you are a brand loyalist, then just say so, don't make up crazy replies and get upset about being called on it.

Just be honest about it. Nothing wrong with a brand loyalists at all.

LIke all things, all I would say is keep the options open and don't shut the door on alternatives simply over brand logos.

I recently purchased the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR myself, and had been using the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Why? I have a couple of things coming up where the VR will come in handy and the lens will pay for itself.

Julio
 
Yes, the 50 f/1.4 and the 60 micro - both future considerations for me - are 52mm. (I actually never said anything about color consistency, but I have heard some make that argument as well.)

Anyway, sorry for the flame... I guess I just read too far into your 'label' comment. Seemed like a bit of a put down to insinuate that I put no more thought into how to spend my lens budget than a brand name... if that were the case, I wouldn't be taking the time to collect info and opinions, and carry-out my own tests at B&H.

And really, the whole point of my thread was to open things up to various options. In fact, I was really leaning toward the Sigma 150 until I studied the results of my test shots. So, from one shooter to another, let's dispense with the back and forth and call it a day!

To each his own : )

--
  • Aaron
 
The main thing that really counts, actually the ONLY thing that counts is that YOU are happy with your choice.

On filters, that is another controversial subject on it's own, I dont use filters at all, I know you want to protect the lens, but filters do detract from the quality of the lens, at least that is my theory.

Again, enjoy your lens and post some pics when you get a chance.

Answering your other reply re DOF, I could be wrong but I am sure I can see a difference between the 105mm which I no longer have so I cant do a comparison with the 150, the 150 seems to have a shallower DOF at 1:1, maybe someone else can confirm this one way or the other.

Anyone else considering the Sigma 150, it is not very good at f22 other apertures are fine.
arobacker said:
ypsilon said:
just being curious: For what did you prefer the nikon?

Greetz
Y

--
-------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/ypsilon
Click to expand...
--
  • Aaron
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top