John K wrote:
Janer_2 wrote:
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.
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...
...and what we are trying to tell you is that they are all pretty good, and the one you choose will be determined by the light source you want to shoot with and how you want to shoot...
Well, that's good. Maybe I didn't get it right, but I didn't catch that from what was actually written. Lighting is flexible, so if natural light doesn't quite cut it I have other sources available to me, so that's why I don't give that much concern at this stage. The way I end up shooting will depend on the lens I get, so I suppose I look at these things a bit backwards from your point of view. Which might sound strange to you perhaps.
The reason behind this is that a macro lens purely for shooting macro wasn't my initial intention. The reason I started looking at these was astro and their capabilities to do that pretty well, then there's the factors of focal length and aperture that I will require in order to get what I want from that. Hence the different selection that might have thrown you off a bit since they are vastly different when it comes to what kind of macro shooting they are best suited for.
That's why I say that the kind of macro I will seek to try depends on the lens I end up with. I think it's wrong to put it like this but in this case macro kind of come second as a priority, but it's still something I'd like to pursue more so it's kind of a win win situation for me as I get to explore two worlds with one lens.
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...
...depends on the light source again. I doubt you are going to find anyone who has owned every lens that you listed in the OP, but from what I and others have seen they all perform about the same. You could always look at the MTF charts for each lens, although the best lens for the job will be the one that works with your technique and light source. Funny how that works
Sure, but if person "A" has tried one lens for some specific kind of macro shooting while person "B" has tried a second, I figured I could somehow combine that information with the factors deciding which lens I prefer for astro in order to make the best choice for me. For example; I initially preferred the 180mm for astro to get a slightly narrower field, but it's a very steep learning curve in the macro field with such a long focal length as I've come to learn here (which is also logical when you think about it). So naturally I would feel more inclined to choose a shorter focal length as a compromise.
I haven't read the actual MTF charts but I've looked at the data they provide, but that's more or less regarding the best possible choice for astro where I will need to shoot as open as possible and want to get as little coma as possible. That's where the data will help me, but again, the one I find most interesting for AP might be too complicated or demanding if you like for the specific kind of macro it's suited for.
Look no one here is trying to bully you -we are all trying to give you the benefit of our experience. I do not think that you are going to find a detailed comparison of the lenses that you are considering, and at best you will just get fan boys that will tell you that "X" lens is the best because that is the one that they use.
That's reassuring, I didn't mean to get you all wrong. I just felt quite misunderstood, as we seem to come from different angles on this topic. But as I've said, I do appreciate all the experience and advice anyone brings to the table. I can only benefit from that. I agree, but if you don't ask you never know right?
Do you really want some help, or are you just looking for someone to make you feel good about buying one of the lenses on your list?
Definetly not I'm decided on the choice of which type of lens to get, I've been very drawn to Nikon so I'm not that familiar with Sigma lenses. There's just something about asking "actual people" what they have experienced with a lens in the field, compared to reading sort of general and "static" reviews. Unless I'm buying vintage optics for adapting for cheap, buying a "modern" lens intended for more serious use is something I try to read into as much as I can, even though I have a fair amount of optics and a couple of cameras I have my budget and want to get it as right as I can. I'm not looking to buy just for the sake of buying.
Hopefully I've managed to explain a bit further where I come from. That being said, I'll try to take into account what you've said and continue on this note (trying to look at it from the other perspective):
I would prefer if I could bring the lens with me on walks (monopod or tripod available, but also handheld). I find it kind of difficult to determine what I'd like to shoot since I would probably try anything and everything anyways. Insects, plants/shrooms is just what comes to mind as things that you come across on random walkabouts.
I like the look of close up shots (pardon me if I don't get the magnification terms accurate just yet) as well as 1:1, then again so does 1:2 or even 1:6 (I've looked at the examples here https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6519974919/macro-photography-understanding-magnification). Anything above 1:1, say 2:1 and so on, is not what I'm looking for.
Then there's the recent development for me, I just pulled the trigger on a Nikon 180mm F2.8D that was offered to me for a nice reasonable amount (I'm weak for quality, cheap Nikon optics..), this changes my situation slightly as I would not consider getting another 180mm. However I'm still content on getting a macro lens both for AP and macro. From the AP perspective I would like to get the Sigma 150mm cause it gives me a decent option in between the 180mm and the 85mm I already own, but as I've been adviced here the Sigma 105mm might be the better choice for getting into macro (better choice = more forgiving learning curve than longer focal lengths).
I figured the focal length should make it easier to attempt macro without having to get too close with certain types of living creatures, harder to frame and nail focus but also might increase the range of subjects I can shoot?
I've looked into the alternatives mentioned in this thread, the two Sigmas are pretty close in terms of the price, a Laowa 100mm would cost slightly more (but lacks VR and AF which is a nice feature) and then the older Tamron 90mm without VR which is quite a bit cheaper than the Sigmas (under USD 170).
I've read a lot of opinions about VR and AF not being critical for macro work, it certainly is a no go for AP - but I do like having AF as an option. VR wouldn't 100% be a deal breaker, but it's also a nice feature to have imo. So even if I'm leaning a bit towards the Sigma 150mm, I'm still pretty torn between the two Sigmas. Tamron and Laowa just seem to fall a bit short of my preferences in terms of focal length and the lack of AF/VR respectively.
