Lens comparison for macro work

Janer_2 wrote:

I just started subbing to this forum and recently I have been getting more interested in macro photography as well. As of now I have a few lenses that I am weighing up against each other.

Just for fun I have already got some close up filters from Polaroid coming in, macro rings/helicoids and various enlarger lenses that I've had some fun with. The only "macro lens" I have is the Industar 61 LZ which has been great fun so far, but I still find myself wanting something modern as well.

FYI I have also posted this question, with a twist, in the astro forum as I intend to get the lens that could bring the most in both macro and AP. I understand that it's a compromise regarding AP, but the low CA, suitable aperture and FL has me thinking they could probably do both reasonably well. It's not an identical cross post, but i's just a heads up.

1. Nikon AF-s Micro 105mm F2.8 ED VR
2. Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro
3. Sigma 150mm F2.8 APO Macro DG HSM
4. Sigma APO 180mm F3.5 Macro

These are the lenses I am considering and find available second hand at the moment. The Nikon is the most expensive one at $484, followed by the Sigma 150 at $337, then the Sigma 180 at $315 and the cheapest of the bunch is the Sigma 105 at $309.

My mind is leaning towards the Nikon mainly because all my modern lenses are well.. Nikon. I've read reviews and certain posts on DPR comparing some of these lenses to each other and as always there are mixed reviews and I am no wiser for it. Though F2.8 is compelling to me as I seek to use it for different purposes, be it macro, astro or general photography/portraits.

The kind of macro I intend to do is a bit unclear, I just want something that is able to catch insects, flowers and generally things I find interesting. The more details the better so something that yields sharp results. This might describe all of the above. Handheld performance is a plus, but all of these have stabilizing so that might be ok all over the board.

After browsing Flickr I'm not really getting a feel for which would suit me the best, The 105mm's might be the most convenient for walking around and carrying in a bag. But considering performance I would really like some shared experiences from these. Not just regarding sharpness etc but also how convenient they are in terms of focus distance and proximity to the subject. The 180mm brings a lot of range to the table, but a 105mm might be more than enough for all I know.

Also, I mainly use a D800 and have the possibility to adapt them to a A7 II if I feel adventurous.

Online reviews will tell you how the lenses you listed perform, but I believe they are all good. There are a few considerations:

1) Nikon lenses are compatible with all Nikon cameras, with some limitations, but that AF-S lens is fine on Zed cameras with an FTZ.

2) Third party lenses might have issues with some F mount cameras, and Zed mount cameras. I think those Sigma lenses are okay but it’s worth checking if you intend to upgrade the camera in future. Also make sure the copy of the lens works with your camera. That said, you can always sell on the lens at a future date if need be without losing much money.

3) Some Nikon cameras, and all FX Zed ones, support focus shifting for focus stacking. But you need a lens with an integral autofocus motor. I think the Sigma lenses support this, but it’s worth checking if this is an issue for you.

Regarding Polaroid close up filters, if they are single element, don’t bother. You need two element achromats. The Olympus MCON-35 is good value and quality but you need to stop the lens right down, to F16 on my 105mm lens. Nikon 5T and 6T filters are excellent but expensive.

As for focal length, it depends what you want to photograph, and the sensor size. Assuming FX (full frame), a 60mm lens is great for copy work indoors, but it doesn’t have much working distance and does not isolate a subject. I am not a fan of 60mm lenses for my style of close up photography. Mine did work well for small insects, handheld, with a macro flash. A 200mm lens has excellent working distance, so it’s good for active and wary subjects, and it has a narrow field of view which isolates subjects nicely, and helps avoids busy backgrounds. But these lenses are big and heavy and the focal length magnifies vibrations. They are great on a tripod. A 105mm lens is a nice compromise for close ups in my opinion. When you get to life size, problems increase due to greatly reduced depth of field and so on. I have done mainly close ups of insects, handheld and on a tripod, and close ups and macro (1:1) of fungi on a tripod.

As for AP, the longer the focal length the harder it is to guide the lens without star trails.