sigma and tamron 180 macro

Pearce · Aug 3, 2003

I am interested in getting one of these lenses. If anyone has experience on both or either, could you share? I am mainly looking for a comparison of the two.

Thank you,

Bill Pearce

wing88 · Aug 3, 2003

why 180mm Macro ??

for the 180mm or for the macro ?

the Tamron 90mm SP Macro is the better Macro
and there are better options for the 180/200

as I said just curious to see what you after ..

Have fun
gmd

Pearce said:
I am interested in getting one of these lenses. If anyone has
experience on both or either, could you share? I am mainly looking
for a comparison of the two.

Thank you,

Bill Pearce

Pearce · Aug 3, 2003

I am looking to take pictures of bugs, plants, mechanical parts and whatever else strikes me for a close up shot. I think the 180 will help me by not scaring away the bugs; I'm not so worried about the plants and parts. I also like to take pictures of aircraft and the 180 with a 1.4x will do that better than the 90. I'm not interested in portraits for I don't do them well. But I do want to handhold so the 90 would be better for that. Also DOF is better with the 90. The Tamron seems to be the near universal winner of the 60-105 macro contest so I dont't have a question in that range. But I don't know about the 180 range. I still have not decided if I will go with a 90 or 180.

I have a sigma 15-30, Nikon 24-120 vr and Sigma 50-500mm. I am open to suggestions. Does this make sense?

Bill Pearce

wing88 · Aug 4, 2003

if I would be you id go for the Tamron 90 Macro
cant do much better than that .. I have the
Nikon 105 Micro but used the Tamron also
and I think the Tamron rocks ..
get a 80-200 AF ED if money is the point
get a 70-200 AF-S VR and dont do the 180
especially when you talk 1.4
and sell the 50-500
but thats just me ..

have fun
gmd

Pearce said:
I am looking to take pictures of bugs, plants, mechanical parts and
whatever else strikes me for a close up shot. I think the 180 will
help me by not scaring away the bugs; I'm not so worried about the
plants and parts. I also like to take pictures of aircraft and the
180 with a 1.4x will do that better than the 90. I'm not interested
in portraits for I don't do them well. But I do want to handhold so
the 90 would be better for that. Also DOF is better with the 90.
The Tamron seems to be the near universal winner of the 60-105
macro contest so I dont't have a question in that range. But I
don't know about the 180 range. I still have not decided if I will
go with a 90 or 180.

I have a sigma 15-30, Nikon 24-120 vr and Sigma 50-500mm. I am open
to suggestions. Does this make sense?

Bill Pearce

Tom Nolle · Aug 4, 2003

Your motives are the same as mine were, and I got the Sigma 180. I love the lens. Not only is it good for macro shots at distances of a couple feet instead of six inches, it can be combined with their 1.4x teleconverter to turn into a nice telephoto with an effective focal length (given the S2 multiplier) of almost 400mm.

I like the two-zone focus, too. Never tried any others; I saw the lens test on this guy and I've got a bunch of Sigma's that I'm happy with.

Tom

Pearce said:
I am looking to take pictures of bugs, plants, mechanical parts and
whatever else strikes me for a close up shot. I think the 180 will
help me by not scaring away the bugs; I'm not so worried about the
plants and parts. I also like to take pictures of aircraft and the
180 with a 1.4x will do that better than the 90. I'm not interested
in portraits for I don't do them well. But I do want to handhold so
the 90 would be better for that. Also DOF is better with the 90.
The Tamron seems to be the near universal winner of the 60-105
macro contest so I dont't have a question in that range. But I
don't know about the 180 range. I still have not decided if I will
go with a 90 or 180.

I have a sigma 15-30, Nikon 24-120 vr and Sigma 50-500mm. I am open
to suggestions. Does this make sense?

Bill Pearce

Andy-James · Aug 4, 2003

Unless you are not planning to go closer than 1:2, and unless you're not using a d-slr with a 1.5x crop, I would highly advise that you do not get either one of those lenses. The focal length + macro focusing combination give you a DOF so small that even at F32 you will have less than a millimeter in focus. It's good as a fixed focal length lens and a telephoto lens, and maybe for focusing on objects within 40 cm at that focal length, but anything closer and you're looking at many nights of misery. Believe me, even the Sigma 105 is bad enough. I would personally recommend the Tamron 90 macro or the Sigma 50 macro if you are out for a good macro lens.

Also on that note, I'm just curious..how many people in this forum use prosumer digicams for macro shots (e.g. the Coolpix 4500 / 5700) ? I ask this because since the lenses are much smaller, the standard for those cameras gives lots of DOF, much for macro shots even.

Pearce said:
I am interested in getting one of these lenses. If anyone has
experience on both or either, could you share? I am mainly looking
for a comparison of the two.

Thank you,

Bill Pearce

--
Andy
========
When the sun burns out, they will try to blame the Fuji S2

R.R. Sprinkhuizen · Aug 5, 2003

Andy-James said:
that you do not get either one of those lenses. The focal length +
macro focusing combination give you a DOF so small that even at F32
you will have less than a millimeter in focus.

Exactly why I choose against it.

Andy-James said:
105 is bad enough. I would personally recommend the Tamron 90 macro
or the Sigma 50 macro if you are out for a good macro lens.

I just bought the Tamron, because of the added distance to the subject. And I can always use my Nikon 50/1.8 with extension rings, if I need a 50mm lens. From what I read, the Sigma 50 macro is as good as the Tamron 90.

Andy-James said:
Also on that note, I'm just curious..how many people in this forum
use prosumer digicams for macro shots (e.g. the Coolpix 4500 /
5700) ? I ask this because since the lenses are much smaller, the
standard for those cameras gives lots of DOF, much for macro shots
even.

Nope. S2 + Tamron + Soligor (=Kenko) extensionrings (12+20+36mm). Results are almost 2:1. Sold my Minolta Dimage7 because I could not get used to the non-SLR feeling.

Little example (tip of a rollerbal) after having the setup for a couple of hours:

http://www.rare-it.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Diversen&id=DSCF2957

Cheers!
Reginald
--
Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

Geffrard Bourke · Aug 5, 2003

Pearce said:
I am interested in getting one of these lenses. If anyone has
experience on both or either, could you share? I am mainly looking
for a comparison of the two.

Thank you,

Bill Pearce

Hi Bill. I have the Sigma 180mm macro lens. I have had it for 7 months now, and let me tell you, it's a fantastic lens. Its well built, quite when focusing, and most important it's SHARP AS HELL.. The working distance is great so as not to disturb bugs etc., I've even kept it on the camera and used it as a telephoto lens. You can't go wrong with this lens, it's a beauty. The Tamron 90mm is a great lens, but I chose the Sigma for the working distance. Get it, you won't regret it.
--
Thanks
Geff Bourke

Pearce · Aug 5, 2003

Thank you all for giving me feedback. It seems that people are happy with the Tamron 90 and Sigma 180. For those that use the 180, how shallow is the DOF and do you handhold the lens? For all, how is the sharpness at infinity? Once again I appreciate the feedback, it has been very helpful.

Bill Pearce

auroraproject · Aug 5, 2003

wing88 said:
why 180mm Macro ??

for the 180mm or for the macro ?

the Tamron 90mm SP Macro is the better Macro
and there are better options for the 180/200

as I said just curious to see what you after ..

Have fun
gmd

Working distance, the Sigma 180mm gives you 18", the Tamron 90mm gives you 11.4", for skittish insects further is better.
--
D100 User & Pbase supporter.
Film? I don't need no stinkin' film!
http://www.pbase.com/digifan

Derrel87035 · Aug 5, 2003

Pearce said:
For those that use the 180,how shallow is the DOF and do you handhold the lens?

Pearce,

The DOF is shallow, but at a greater working distance,you can get the same magnification as the Tamron 90 yields,and basically, the same depth of field! So,the shallow DOF issue isn't really particularto the Sigma 180mm macro, but more to the degree of magification you are working at. I personally think a close-focusing 180mm lens is really,really handy. I have the Tamron 90 as well,and I enjoy the more-magnified view I can get with the 180,from farther away. I also like the narrower angle of view that the longer lens gives me...with the same-sized subject, I get a narrower background angle of acceptance. This to me is the main reason to use a longer focal length lens....not so much for subject magnification as for the narrower angle of view.

Pearce said:
For all, how is the sharpness at infinity?

My Sigma 180 Macro is very sharp at normal working distances, all the way out to infinity focus. It is a very sharp,contrasty lens. It is a well-designed lens optically...when you review photos shot with it, it shows a LOT of snap and crispness on the S2's captures...it really does. The Sigma 180 3.5 APO-HSM IF macro,the new model under discussion here,is every bit the equal of the Nikkor 180 AF-D in my opinion, at distance shooting of from 8 feet to infinity.

Perhaps my lens needs to be re-chipped to function better,and I am preparing to send it to Sigma America for a CPU chip update/upgrade. Optically, it is very good, but my sample has some weird HSM focus/diaphragm/Err issues, which other Sigma HSM lens users have also suffered from,so I am hopeful that it will all be resolved after the chip upgrade procedure has been performed.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

R.R. Sprinkhuizen · Aug 5, 2003

Derrel said:
close-focusing 180mm lens is really,really handy. I have the Tamron
90 as well,and I enjoy the more-magnified view I can get with the
180,from farther away. I also like the narrower angle of view that

When you set both lenses to their closest focussing distance, so they will give you a 1:1 (lifesize) reproduction-ratio, wouldn't the view be the same? Looking at a ruler (for instance) through the viewfinder should give the same result, albeit that with the 180mm the lens is further away from the subject. Hence the more practical use of the 180mm with easily scared subjects.

Cheers!
Reginald
--
Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

Derrel87035 · Aug 5, 2003

Reginald Sprinkhuizen said:
When you set both lenses to their closest focussing distance, so
they will give you a 1:1 (lifesize) reproduction-ratio, wouldn't
the view be the same? Looking at a ruler (for instance) through the
viewfinder should give the same result, albeit that with the 180mm
the lens is further away from the subject. Hence the more practical
use of the 180mm with easily scared subjects.

Exactly Reginald. The magnification is identical, 1:1, from both lenses.But the width of the background behind your 1:1-sized butterfly or lizard is narrower with the more-telephoto lens. Less backdrop shows in the tele shots. And you're right, the 180 is better for skittish insects or animals that don't allow one to get really,really close to them. Many butterflies and small animals just will not allow people to approach them really closely, so there's no chance of taking a frame-filling closeup with a 60mm lens from three inches away...one has to resort to a longer focal length, like a 180 or 200 either a macro or a regular,non-macro lens, or a 300mm lens, often with an extension tube, to get that frame-filling type image size.

And as far as the Sigma 180 goes, yes, in good,bright light, it is possible to hand-hold the lens,and I find f/8 at 1/350 to 1/500 is fine with this lens. This is a very light-feeling 180mm lens. Some close-up photography is best done off a tripod, so you can frame a shot quickly as the insect flits from flower to flower...often tripod-mounting is just too slow with fast-moving subjects,and one has to resort to hand-held shooting using daylight,or flash illumination.

DOF is shallow will all macro lenses,and the higher the magnification, the shallower the DOF gets. And since this lens magnifies quite a bit, you quickly find yourself shooting "magnified" views of all types of really close subjects. What I like though is how it separates the near subjects from the foreground or background via the distance-compressing telephoto distance distortion, and the degree of out-of-focus background the 180mm length gives.

The coolest thing about a macro 180 is how you can carry it,and can shoot anything that pops up from 18 inches to infinity...with an extension tube on a regular lens, if say a subject pops up at 10 feet, you must remove the tube from both lens and camera, re-mount the lens, then shoot. Usually, the shot that "pops up" is missed a lot of times...but with the macro 180s you can bring to focus almost any subject. From close to far, with a nice,lovely telephoto "look" to all photos.

To me, the way the 180mm length on 1.5x separates the foreground from the background,and compresses apparent distance, is just a really good feature of the 180 length,inherently. And while a 90 or 105 macro lens is a good thing,a 180 is almost indespensible. Has been for years. Almost all of them are very good to excellent lenses.The new macro 180's, the non-Nikkors,are neat lenses. They put a pictorial impression on each photo,and it's different from what a 55 or 60 or 90 or 105 macro brings to the party. By sheer focal length and angle of view.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

Tom Nolle · Aug 6, 2003

I agree with the comments on the depth of field and the handholding of the 180 Sigma. My current strategy is to use a Bogen monopod with the little (and very strong) stabilizing legs. I'm hoping this will minimize lateral jitter and let me get the shutter speed down to obtain greater depth of field.

I've used the lens for normal telephoto work and I love its sharpness, and I'm planning on mating it with the Sigma 1.4 converter for use in Churchill on the polar bears this winter.

Tom

Derrel said:
Reginald Sprinkhuizen said:

When you set both lenses to their closest focussing distance, so
they will give you a 1:1 (lifesize) reproduction-ratio, wouldn't
the view be the same? Looking at a ruler (for instance) through the
viewfinder should give the same result, albeit that with the 180mm
the lens is further away from the subject. Hence the more practical
use of the 180mm with easily scared subjects.

Click to expand...

Exactly Reginald. The magnification is identical, 1:1, from both
lenses.But the width of the background behind your 1:1-sized
butterfly or lizard is narrower with the more-telephoto lens. Less
backdrop shows in the tele shots. And you're right, the 180 is
better for skittish insects or animals that don't allow one to get
really,really close to them. Many butterflies and small animals
just will not allow people to approach them really closely, so
there's no chance of taking a frame-filling closeup with a 60mm
lens from three inches away...one has to resort to a longer focal
length, like a 180 or 200 either a macro or a regular,non-macro
lens, or a 300mm lens, often with an extension tube, to get that
frame-filling type image size.

And as far as the Sigma 180 goes, yes, in good,bright light, it is
possible to hand-hold the lens,and I find f/8 at 1/350 to 1/500 is
fine with this lens. This is a very light-feeling 180mm lens. Some
close-up photography is best done off a tripod, so you can frame a
shot quickly as the insect flits from flower to flower...often
tripod-mounting is just too slow with fast-moving subjects,and one
has to resort to hand-held shooting using daylight,or flash
illumination.

DOF is shallow will all macro lenses,and the higher the
magnification, the shallower the DOF gets. And since this lens
magnifies quite a bit, you quickly find yourself shooting
"magnified" views of all types of really close subjects. What I
like though is how it separates the near subjects from the
foreground or background via the distance-compressing telephoto
distance distortion, and the degree of out-of-focus background the
180mm length gives.

The coolest thing about a macro 180 is how you can carry it,and can
shoot anything that pops up from 18 inches to infinity...with an
extension tube on a regular lens, if say a subject pops up at 10
feet, you must remove the tube from both lens and camera, re-mount
the lens, then shoot. Usually, the shot that "pops up" is missed a
lot of times...but with the macro 180s you can bring to focus
almost any subject. From close to far, with a nice,lovely telephoto
"look" to all photos.

To me, the way the 180mm length on 1.5x separates the foreground
from the background,and compresses apparent distance, is just a
really good feature of the 180 length,inherently. And while a 90 or
105 macro lens is a good thing,a 180 is almost indespensible. Has
been for years. Almost all of them are very good to excellent
lenses.The new macro 180's, the non-Nikkors,are neat lenses. They
put a pictorial impression on each photo,and it's different from
what a 55 or 60 or 90 or 105 macro brings to the party. By sheer
focal length and angle of view.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

R.R. Sprinkhuizen · Aug 6, 2003

Derrel said:
Reginald Sprinkhuizen said:

When you set both lenses to their closest focussing distance, so
they will give you a 1:1 (lifesize) reproduction-ratio, wouldn't
the view be the same? Looking at a ruler (for instance) through the
viewfinder should give the same result, albeit that with the 180mm
the lens is further away from the subject. Hence the more practical
use of the 180mm with easily scared subjects.

Click to expand...

Exactly Reginald. The magnification is identical, 1:1, from both
lenses.But the width of the background behind your 1:1-sized
butterfly or lizard is narrower with the more-telephoto lens. Less

Okay, I understand what you are saying. For a moment I thought you said the subject would change in size.

I bought the Tamron 90/2.8 for now, just to get started with macro-photography. With a couple of rings I can almost achieve 2:1 (double life-size). If I like macro-photography as much as I think I do, and the results are pleasing, I might consider saving up for a Sigma 180/3.5 or a Nikon 200/4, but twice (4x for the Nikon) the price of the Tamron (must be the double lens length ;-) was out of my league at the moment.

Thanks for explaining.

Cheers!
Reginald
--
Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

Search

sigma and tamron 180 macro

Pearce

Member

wing88

Senior Member

Pearce

Member

wing88

Senior Member

Tom Nolle

Well-known member

Andy-James

Well-known member

R.R. Sprinkhuizen

Forum Enthusiast

Geffrard Bourke

Forum Enthusiast

Pearce

Member

auroraproject

Senior Member

Derrel87035

Senior Member

R.R. Sprinkhuizen

Forum Enthusiast

Derrel87035

Senior Member

Tom Nolle

Well-known member

R.R. Sprinkhuizen

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts