Lens comparison for macro work

Macro guy wrote:

I completely agree with John K.

I think that what he's trying to tell you is that macro is a VERY specialized field and requires specialized tools depending on the type of macro photography you're going to do. There is no such thing as a "general purpose" macro lens,

Think of it this way: At this point, you're saying that you want to be a doctor and you're asking which doctor tools are better. John is telling you that it doesn't work like that. You have to decide WHAT TYPE of a doctor you want to be. If you're going to be an orthopedist, a stethoscope does you no good. If you want to be a psychiatrist, you don't need a scalpel.

It's the same scenario here. The TYPE OF MACRO PHOTOGRAPHY YOU DO DICTATES YOUR CHOICE OF EQUIPMENT.

All of your points are fair and valid, and goes for any kind of photography if we're getting picky at it. But does that mean I shouldn't do it unless i tediously study every angle of it? Of course not. I've had several replies with great and on point advice regarding the lenses, yet I feel some have failed to see what the post was actually about and in stead somehow made me feel like I shouldn't be trying to get into macro because I don't have it all figured out. Don't get me wrong, I wont be disheartened by it, but that's how some come across.

Just to clarify; I've never asked for a general purpose macro lens. I have however asked for user experience regarding four specific lenses, which some apparently seem to ignore. I value and duly take notes of any advice given, but this post was never about macro techniques or styles of macro. Maybe it should have been a shorter original post to avoid any annoyance or confusion, but a fair amount of what I've written has also been disregarded too so I'm not sure that would have helped.

I appreciate that it is a wide field with various gear having specific advantages, but again, this post was never about any of that. Therefore, while appreciating being given advice and lessons on macro photography, I still fail to see the relevance to my pursuit of user experiences on these lenses.

To explain a bit further, the type of answer I am looking for would be information regarding how well someone finds "lens A" to be in terms of sharpness, stabilization for handheld or if they found a tripod necessary at all times. Of course, the kind of subjects they found it ideal for is interesting information, but not crucial at this point. I will do what I can using the gear I have, I'm not locked in any way nor will I ever lock myself/dedicate myself to any specific genre of photography.

This is why I try everything and try to expand and evolve. My photography is about me and what I enjoy, not about posting images to gain likes or approval from peers. Therefore anything regarding that is quite secondary to me. If I ended up getting a 105mm lens I would simply use that within it's limitations for what it would be suitable for, same goes for the other alternatives I have on the table. I'm not looking to become the best macro photographer in the world, simply to expand and explore with the lens(es) that are available to me.

While this gear is not the latest, it's certainly modern to me. Being a huge fan of adapting vintage glass I'd say most stuff from the last ten years at least is pretty modern. If we're talking 40-100 years old we can talk vintage/old. That's just my point of view though.

I do not seek to argue which is why I haven't been writing in length replies to everything so far, nor did I intend annoy anyone but I still fail to see how or why someone would be. Maybe I'm getting it all wrong as that is just how it comes across on my end. I appreciate passion, but as stated above; starting out somewhere doesn't always mean you have a clear cut path. I for one make it out as I go, and if the lens I end up with limits me to a certain thing, well I suppose that is where I start out.

So, no, I really don't think the doctor analogy is fitting here as much of what I wrote and asked about was sort of pulled out of proportions and in some way also disregarded. What's interesting to me is that despite giving great input and advice on techniques and different styles of macro, the point of the post has been overlooked by some.

I hope I don't come across as rude, I just wanted to clarify some things. My main interest is getting the best optical lens of the bunch, which in my case means most suited for astro and still good for doing some kind of macro. It's all about having fun.

My findings so far seem to keep me most interested in the Sigma 105 and the Sigma 150. I've been going over the data provided on Lenstip, and these two seem to provide the most bang for the buck regarding resolution, coma, CA etc. The Sigma 180 seem to perform less than expected so I'm not sure that it is the right choice for me despite the focal length being interesting. This is also confirmed by various reviews I have come across while Googling.

I suppose when I reflect on it the astro part of it sort of dictates what kind of macro I will be trying to pursue. Most likely I will end up with the Sigma 150mm. Since that would give me the slightly narrower field for astro work while ticking most of my boxes.