Reading mode: Light Dark

macro lens, or not

Go to last post
I

iowaiter

Well-known member
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Location
SE
Hi all,

I´m about to invest in an macro lens to my d70, and hopefully get some money left towards a sigma 10-20 or maybe something like 18-50/2.8.

Therefore I would like to be able to use the macro lense as a decent portrait and/or telephoto lens.

I will probably shoot 99% handheld, though alot of the macro photos will probably be well lit, my latesta obssesion has ben bugs in motion and that will probably last through the summer. I´m uncertain if I should go for an agile 90mm or if I should go for the more powerful but bulky 150mm.

I´m quite certain on the 90mm since I probably won´t be using 1:1 that much, on the other hand thats a new world so I´m not sure.

I´v got three candidates.
1. 90mm tamron, "cheap", light, agile.
2. 150mm Sigma, not that cheap, a lot more reach, IF, HSM.
3. 105mm Sigma, "cheap", light, a little more reach.

4 If I had the cash, 105mm nikkor VR (which actualy is cheaper than the old 105 here) , but I´ll rather buy both the 10-20 and the 90mm tamron.....

Today I use a sigma 18-50, $100 lens (so I expect improvement)
Help me out here, TIA.

Henrik
 
Just let you know.
90 is about as good as you can get in its focus length, and still cheap.
It also takes very good portraits because of the beautiful brokhe.
 
Macro lenses are all optical superb peformers. Within this corral of exceptional glass, two lenses stand out (from my experience): the MicroNikkor 200f4 AFD and the Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP (Di or not...doesn't matter). I wish the Tamron had a metal barrel (more for the inertia than the build), but that didn't stop me from getting one.
 
The Sigma 105 is a wonderful lens, not only as a macro but also at a medium telephoto. Very sharp and high contrast. I would say its the longest focal length you should consider as a handheld. I also own the 180mm Sigma macro which is a goreous macro but does require a tripod. I suspect the 150mm is also too much lens to hand hold.

The difference between the Sigma and Nikon 105 is not the image quality but rather 1. Focus-Nikon faster 2. lens shade - sigma is screw on so its either shade or lens cap 3. The Sigma front element goes in and out..as does the Nikon..but the new Nikon VR does not.

I like a lot of other folks will be selling their 105s when our on-order 105 VRs come in so wait a month and there will be lots of mint 105s on ebay.
--
Ken Eis
 
Having had the Nikkor 105 and the Sigma...I actually prefered the Sigma. I found the bokeh to be more pleasing and all else equal. PLEASE...don't take this to mean that I am inferring that the Nikkor is a lesser lens. Its just a subtle difference that I noticed. The Sigma 180 is also brilliant...you really cannot make a poor choice in this class of lens.
 
Thansk for all advice, if I get some good pictures with it I´ll share them with you.

Henrik
 
I have owned or used most of the AF versions of macro lenses available in Nikon mount. I use a Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and a Sigma EX 150/2.8 macro and am completely satisfied with both but the 150 is exceptional, both as a macro lens and as a mid-range telephoto. I like to have some standoff from my subjects when I shoot so, if I were buying a macro lens today it would be either the Sigma EX 150 or the Nikkor 200 f4. I find both to be exceptional but I own the Sigma because of its overall ergonomics and handling. Price was not a factor.

--
regards
Mike Parker
Frederick, MD
 
It was my 1:st candidate but I decided that a 90mm was better for handheld and it left more room (money wise) for a second lens this year.
If the interest keeps up I can always go for the 150 or a 200 later =)

Henrik
 
Yes, that's right and your Tamron 90 is very fine lens. I used one for a year or so and like it very much. It's as good as anything in its range.

--
regards
Mike Parker
Frederick, MD
 
Superb lens good price, light weight. I wouldn't want to use a longer/heavier lens hand held for macro.
 
cameraguy21773 said:
I have owned or used most of the AF versions of macro lenses
available in Nikon mount. I use a Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and a Sigma
EX 150/2.8 macro and am completely satisfied with both but the 150
is exceptional, both as a macro lens and as a mid-range telephoto.
I like to have some standoff from my subjects when I shoot so, if I
were buying a macro lens today it would be either the Sigma EX 150
or the Nikkor 200 f4. I find both to be exceptional but I own the
Sigma because of its overall ergonomics and handling. Price was not
a factor.

--
regards
Mike Parker
Frederick, MD
Click to expand...
I own the 150mm Macro also and I couldn't agree more with Mike's comments. It is a first class lens, and I find its nice for hand holding also.

Cheers
 
I agree. I purchased the Sigma over the Nikon, but am now buying the new 105 VR, not because I'm unhappy with the Sigma's optical performance but mostly to be compatible with my new R1C1 Nikon strobe system. The Sigma's extending front optic focusing is not recommended for hanging the R1C1 on. I want a really portable hand held butterfly hunting system.
--
Ken Eis
 
Just got a used Sigma 105mm from keh yesterday. One of my first pics below. (It's the little tool you change drill bits with):

 
Is it a safe assumption that the new 105 VR version Nikon macro will have better optical and/or bokeh performance than the existing Nikon 105 macro?
 
El_Gimpster said:
Is it a safe assumption that the new 105 VR version Nikon macro
will have better optical and/or bokeh performance than the existing
Nikon 105 macro?
Click to expand...
Hard to tell until we start to see plenty of images. It has a different focussing system, so optical quality could go either way. Most macros in the market are considered to have fine optics as it is, leaving not much room for improvement. I would be looking at the realease of the 105mm VR Micro as a chance to pick up a Nikon 105mm Micro at a bargain price. I use a tripod for most of my Macro work anyway, so VR is a non event for me.

Cheers
 
If you take macro seriously , you might need 2 lenses

a 50-60mm and a 150-200mm

I bought the Sigma 150mm a few months ago and it is a VERY sharp lens- but very heavy and forget about handheld macro work !

despite beeing a HSm lens, AF is not that fast - it helps if you use the focus limiter

That' why I also got the 50mm Sigma, also VERY sharp.
 
JoeMu said:
If you take macro seriously , you might need 2 lenses

a 50-60mm and a 150-200mm

I bought the Sigma 150mm a few months ago and it is a VERY sharp
lens- but very heavy and forget about handheld macro work !

despite beeing a HSm lens, AF is not that fast - it helps if you
use the focus limiter

That' why I also got the 50mm Sigma, also VERY sharp.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I don't find the 150mm too heavy and have managed some decent hand held macro before...infact compared to the new Nikon 105mm VR specs, it is only 2oz heavier!...and the Sigma comes with a tripod mount :)

For a Macro I also find the HSM nippy, espiecally with the limiter switch engaged...but like any macro, it has a fair amount of turning to do to reach opposite ends of focus. Even so, I have very few problems tracking wildlife when I use it as a medium telephoto.

Cheers
 
So, why not buy a great lens used, the Nikkor AF-D 60mm f/2.8 or the 105mm f/2.8 micro lenses? Or, the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 version of the Nikkor 105mm lens new? All are superb, well worth the money, and with no offense meant toward anyone, better lenses than the Sigma or Tamron offerings.

cheers!
Kev
 
Hammer_61 said:
So, why not buy a great lens used, the Nikkor AF-D 60mm f/2.8 or
the 105mm f/2.8 micro lenses? Or, the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 version
of the Nikkor 105mm lens new? All are superb, well worth the
money, and with no offense meant toward anyone, better lenses than
the Sigma or Tamron offerings.

cheers!
Kev
Click to expand...
I would agree with you that a second hand Nikkor would be a great investment...as for being better than the Sigma offerings (not had experience of Tamron), it is arguable as all the lenses are so close...besides, if you want a medium telephoto macro, then the 3rd parties offer more options...and with quality.

I would bet anybody to tell me correctly which picture was taken with a Nikkor compared with pictures taken with 3rd party lenses if they were all lined up.

Cheers
 
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