Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
I agree, Wally - it would be great if someone who is well-versed in the DOF/magnification math put some science to this issue of shorter subject-distance off-setting focal length at 1:1...
Here's another thread where others were discussing this topic:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=13685048
(about 3/4 of the way down)

Regarding filters, do you forgo them on all your lenses, or just macros?

--
  • Aaron
 
The AF is somewhat slow. I"m sure the HSM on the 150 helps a great deal.

When I'm shooting macro though I'm usually focusing manually.

Do you use AF much when shooting macro? Especially when you are getting into the 1:1 or 1:1.2 range of the lens?

If I back up, no problem locking the AF in...but if I'm really in there close to the subject, it will sometimes hunt and not find a lock in point. (Best I can describe it)

Julio
 
Hi Julio,

what I was hoping for when switching from Sigma 105 to Sigma 150 was much faster AF with less hunting. I can't say I'm teribly dissapointed (It migh be D70 AF sensitivity, after all), but I'm not thrilled. As you can see in my macro gallery, I'm trying to capture insects in flight lately, rather than static on flowers kind of pics. Sigma 150 is simply not fast enough in focusing that you could rely on it. So I'm just combining AF with MF (moving the camera back and forth rather than rotating focusing ring), judging which one to chose depending on the situation.

Incidentally, yesterday I've finaly got close-up lens (+1 diopter, 86mm dia) for my Bigma, so I'll be shooting macro with it during the weekend. I'm hoping to get good results as the Bigma seems to AF faster than Sigma 150.
Best regards, Miljenko
--
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko
http://www.fotomag.net
Who dies with most toys, wins.
 
Hi you should have a look at the Sigma 180HSM macro as I believe it is better than 150, it is definitely better optically than the 60mm nikkor, I must point out that I own the 60 mmm nikkor 105 Sigma and 180 Sigma macros my favourite for handheld work is the 105 but if there is enough light I will always go for the 180 I do not use flash in my macro work as it is always done outside in the wild.

Phillip.

D2x sigma 105 @ f8 hand held
baned-demoisell-d2x





arobacker wrote:
In fact, I was really leaning toward the Sigma
arobacker said:
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 : )
Click to expand...
arobacker said:
  • Aaron
Click to expand...
 
arobacker said:
I agree, Wally - it would be great if someone who is well-versed in
the DOF/magnification math put some science to this issue of
shorter subject-distance off-setting focal length at 1:1...
Here's another thread where others were discussing this topic:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=13685048
(about 3/4 of the way down)
Click to expand...
It seems from that thread that DOF is the same, I swear it's not from my results, it would be nice to have that confirmed either way.
arobacker said:
Regarding filters, do you forgo them on all your lenses, or just
macros?
Click to expand...
Years ago I used to buy filters religiously, then stopped using them, don't have filters on any of my lenses, If I was regulalry shooting with sea spray or dust/sand then I would buy one.

The lens hood protects the lens for me.

Why nit pick the lens then slap a filter on it.

It reminds me of people who leave that protective plastic on the inside of car doors, then remove it the day they go to sell the car, one of my pet peeves.

Heck I want to enjoy my lenses to their max capability, don't get me wrong, I am not careless, I do examine them when I get home and wipe them down externally if they have been near sea spary or dust etc.

The only marks I have had to clean from lenses are accidental finger print my fingers removing lens cap and that has only happened twice and easily cleaned up, now I take more care removing the lens cap, problem solved.

With the money I saved on good expensive filters over the years I can replace any one damaged lens with the newer model.
arobacker said:
--
  • Aaron
Click to expand...
 
Have you ever noticed a difference in image quality between with a naked lens vs a w/ a good MC filter?
--
  • Aaron
 
Had the 60mm Nikkor (great lens) when I purchased a Sigma 180mm and later the 105mm 2.8 (EX and Ds versions) Sold the 60 because it wasn't as good with bugs.

These sigmas are the one I use as primes (and macros) all the time. They are as sharp as any Nikkor.

The differences are in focus and just possibly in color. The Sigmas are reputed to be a bit Yellow. You can't prove that my me however. I think color and contrast are superb. These and my Nikkor 300mm f4, 35mm f2 are the only lenses that push my D2X to its full potential.
--
Ken Eis
 
Is your Sigma 180 as sharp as your Sigma 105? Just wondering if the 180 is designed like the Sigma 150 (where i't not completely optimized for 1:1 at small aperatures) or whether it's super-sharp at 1:1 and small aperatures like the 105...

--
  • Aaron
 
Hi Wally and Aaron,

you're on the wrong track here. DOF has nothing to do with the (macro)lens focal length. DOF equals Cc * 2 * F * (M+1) / M*M where Cc is Circle of Confusion, F is aperture and M is magnification factor. So at given magnification DOF is exactly the same with any lens. What IS different is angle of view that gives subjectively feeling of deeper DOF with shorter f.l. lenses.
Best regards, Miljenko
--
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko
http://www.fotomag.net
http://www.wikiphoto.net
Who dies with most toys, wins.
 
Thanks Miljenko.
Miljenko Devcic said:
Hi Wally and Aaron,
you're on the wrong track here. DOF has nothing to do with the
(macro)lens focal length. DOF equals Cc * 2 * F * (M+1) / M*M
where Cc is Circle of Confusion, F is aperture and M is
magnification factor. So at given magnification DOF is exactly the
same with any lens. What IS different is angle of view that gives
subjectively feeling of deeper DOF with shorter f.l. lenses.
Best regards, Miljenko
--
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko
http://www.fotomag.net
http://www.wikiphoto.net
Who dies with most toys, wins.
Click to expand...
 
True.

From my study at a photography school over twenty years ago I learned a very usefull rule about DOF. It says that Dof is directly related to the reproduction ratio, or the size a subject is prodjected on the film/sensor.

So if the projection has the same size (a fly image-wide) the DOF is the same with any lens.

This is easy to understand if you think of the DOF for a normal fly shot at f11. Then picture the DOF for an artificially made fly as big as a house, shot with f11 also.
The proper way to shoot any object is therefore, IMO:

1) move back- and foreward without a camera to see the perspective you want for a certain shot.
2) grab the camera and mount (zoom) the lens to get the proper cropping.

Usually people think the other way round. The mount a lens to get more/less DOF or a wide/tele perspective. Then they start walking back and fourth to get the right cropping.
Miljenko Devcic said:
Hi Wally and Aaron,
you're on the wrong track here. DOF has nothing to do with the
(macro)lens focal length. DOF equals Cc * 2 * F * (M+1) / M*M
where Cc is Circle of Confusion, F is aperture and M is
magnification factor. So at given magnification DOF is exactly the
same with any lens. What IS different is angle of view that gives
subjectively feeling of deeper DOF with shorter f.l. lenses.
Best regards, Miljenko
--
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko
http://www.fotomag.net
http://www.wikiphoto.net
Who dies with most toys, wins.
Click to expand...
 
ypsilon said:
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
Click to expand...
 
The Sigma 150/2.8 is a ripper, worth your dollars.
 
Thread is 10-1/2 years old.....................
 
I agree that it is a "ripper" and now on sale for $619 US dollar.
 
I have had very positive experiences with the Sigma 105. I used to own the regular 105 Sigma and now own the OS version. Both were very good. Several years back I owned the Nikon 105. I did not find it significantly better or worse.
 
Re: Sigma -vs- Nikon macro lenses... ready to buy! In reply to pw-pix2, D500 001

I agree that it is a "ripper" and now on sale for $619 US dollar.

I don't find it for any less than $1089 and used for $850.

Could you share where you saw it for $619?

Thanks

Macmaven
 
Sigma 105mm.
 
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