Lens comparison for macro work

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.

Thank you for the in depth reply! Yes, I figured it was more complicated than I made it out to be. My limited knowledge of macro is to blame. I mean to do natural environment photos, mostly using natural light as well. I have made pleasant stills with my 70-300 zoom of flowers, but it's not really suited for macro. I am leaning towards a 105mm being the most convenient to handle by hand.

For closer work I am going to try the Industar combined with the Sony, it seems to perform rather well. So I guess I'm kind of looking for the best overall performer for different types of photography. Seeing as all of these would be ideal for macro in different scenarios it really comes down to how they handle portraits and/or other types of photography I suppose.

Dear Janer2,

all of the lenses you are considering to buy are fine.

If you are interested in taking photos of insects or animals with some flight distance, the longer focal length will be better. The second advantage of a longer focal length is the tighter deepness of field. You can isolate the object in front of a soft bokeh much easier at the longer focal length.

You have to accept that you need a little longer learning curve with the longer focal length. You have to find the object at some distance and keep the object within the small range of DOF. This is easier at smaller focal length. However, after soem training the problems will vanish and the results are worth it.

I have the 105 mm Sigma lens and it is a very sharp one. However, if I were you, I would take one of the longer lenses. The 180 mm lens is a very good one. The 150 mm seems to be a little bit more new design. I don't know, if it is better. I have a Pentax 200 mm f4 as my favorite macro lens. While searching for this rare lens, I had the Sigma 180 mm on my list, too.

Best regards

Holger

Just for your consideration: Shooting with a 180mm macro is like trying to find your subject through a straw. Don't get me wrong, I shoot the Sigma 180mm f3.5, often with a 1.4X teleconverter, for most of my macros but if you get it, expect a long and frustrating learning curve. Starting out I would recommend the 105mm f2.8.

John K wrote:

Janer_2 wrote:

Thank you for the in depth reply! Yes, I figured it was more complicated than I made it out to be. My limited knowledge of macro is to blame. I mean to do natural environment photos, mostly using natural light as well. I have made pleasant stills with my 70-300 zoom of flowers, but it's not really suited for macro. I am leaning towards a 105mm being the most convenient to handle by hand.

The issue you are going to run into is getting enough good light to shoot macro at 1x and higher mag, hand held, even with IS. If you do not care about light quality (and you should) then you can go out and shoot in harsh noon day sun. The contrast will be too high for the sensor to expose both the highlights and the shadows, the colors will be washed out, and specular surfaces (reflective surfaces) will return the color of the light source and not the color of the surface and you will lose a lot of detail. Yes, you can lose a lot of detail to poor light quality. I have seen triple digit focus stacks that had less detail than my single frame macros because the light the stack was taken with was not diffused well.

When the light is good it is easier to expose for the shadows and highlights (low contrast), colors will naturally saturate, and there will be color and detail in the specular surfaces. But odds are, to shoot at 1x and higher mag in that good light, you are going to need a tripod and a focusing rail. The computer will NEVER be able to recover color and detail that you did not capture with the camera, so you really cannot shoot with bad light and then "fix it in post".

Me thinks that you are too concerned with capturing fine detail, and yet the test of a good photo is if it looks good edge to edge. On some photography sharing sites, like Reddit, someone has to be interested in a thumbnail of your photo -if not then they will not click on it to see the bigger image. Per pixel image sharpness is not relevant to anyone unless they cannot see the picture because the pixels are in the way...

Please don't get me wrong here. While I appreciate and value your good advice, which I duly take notes og and completely agree with. This post is still more about choosing the right lens of the available selection. That's why I want actual user experience to aid me in my own decision making, I can watch Flickr photos all day but actually talking to someone who might have hands on experience is valuable to me.

However, I am concerned with capturing fine detail. Like many I'm possibly cursed that way. But also I don't share my photos anywhere really. So other people's opinions or the general idea of what a "good photo" is doesn't really concern me. As long as I enjoy what I'm doing and am pleased with my results that's good enough for me 

Holger Bargen wrote:

Dear Janer2,

all of the lenses you are considering to buy are fine.

If you are interested in taking photos of insects or animals with some flight distance, the longer focal length will be better. The second advantage of a longer focal length is the tighter deepness of field. You can isolate the object in front of a soft bokeh much easier at the longer focal length.

You have to accept that you need a little longer learning curve with the longer focal length. You have to find the object at some distance and keep the object within the small range of DOF. This is easier at smaller focal length. However, after soem training the problems will vanish and the results are worth it.

I have the 105 mm Sigma lens and it is a very sharp one. However, if I were you, I would take one of the longer lenses. The 180 mm lens is a very good one. The 150 mm seems to be a little bit more new design. I don't know, if it is better. I have a Pentax 200 mm f4 as my favorite macro lens. While searching for this rare lens, I had the Sigma 180 mm on my list, too.

Best regards

Holger

Thank you, exactly the kind of response I've been looking for with first hand user experience. It's interesting that you recommend the only lens I had actually sort of ruled out The focal length is tempting, but as you and others say, it also comes with a steep learning curve. I know all too well how difficult it is to find and lock on to subjects with long focal lengths, but I also see the potential benefits and rewards.

The reason I had ruled it out mainly was due to the weight and max aperture. F2.8 was kind of a bare minimum to me considering I am looking to use the new lens for both macro and astrophotography. Although considering I use tracking for that, it isn't a 100% no go. The weight troubles me however. But that's a discussion for the AP forum, I'm kind of using both arenas now just to potentially make a better and more informed decision with the information compared.

When it all comes down to it I expect to be making a compromise one way or the other. The 150mm is seemingly the one I get the least feedback on.
EDIT:

After going through all lenses on Lenstip I've made the conclusion that it'll be either the Sigma 105mm or the Sigma 180mm. If I could I'd get both tbh. They both seem to really perform considering CA, Coma and distortion. Especially compared to the Sigma 150mm, Nikon 105mm underperforms slightly compared to the Sigma as I understood it.

Looks like I'm heading off the Nikon path.

Janer_2 wrote:

Holger Bargen wrote:

Dear Janer2,

all of the lenses you are considering to buy are fine.

If you are interested in taking photos of insects or animals with some flight distance, the longer focal length will be better. The second advantage of a longer focal length is the tighter deepness of field. You can isolate the object in front of a soft bokeh much easier at the longer focal length.

You have to accept that you need a little longer learning curve with the longer focal length. You have to find the object at some distance and keep the object within the small range of DOF. This is easier at smaller focal length. However, after soem training the problems will vanish and the results are worth it.

I have the 105 mm Sigma lens and it is a very sharp one. However, if I were you, I would take one of the longer lenses. The 180 mm lens is a very good one. The 150 mm seems to be a little bit more new design. I don't know, if it is better. I have a Pentax 200 mm f4 as my favorite macro lens. While searching for this rare lens, I had the Sigma 180 mm on my list, too.

Best regards

Holger

Thank you, exactly the kind of response I've been looking for with first hand user experience. It's interesting that you recommend the only lens I had actually sort of ruled out The focal length is tempting, but as you and others say, it also comes with a steep learning curve. I know all too well how difficult it is to find and lock on to subjects with long focal lengths, but I also see the potential benefits and rewards.

The reason I had ruled it out mainly was due to the weight and max aperture. F2.8 was kind of a bare minimum to me considering I am looking to use the new lens for both macro and astrophotography. Although considering I use tracking for that, it isn't a 100% no go. The weight troubles me however. But that's a discussion for the AP forum, I'm kind of using both arenas now just to potentially make a better and more informed decision with the information compared.

When it all comes down to it I expect to be making a compromise one way or the other. The 150mm is seemingly the one I get the least feedback on.

I do macro photography since many years and I started with lenses with focal length around 100 mm. I also own a 50 mm Pentax macro lens and a 70 mm Sigma macro lens. This Sigma 70 mm macro lens could be interesting for you, too. I know it is not on your list but the optics is close to perfect of that lens - and you have almost best performance already at f 2.8 (maximum opening of the aperture). I don't do any astro photography but if a good resolution at f 2.8 is important I don't know a better lens - except of the latest lens generation of the big brands with the extremely pricey lenses. It's also a good portrait lens where just the old and noisy screwdrive AF may be not so nice.

Regarding the insects it depends on which ones you would like to take photos of. Honeybees are used to be close to human beings and they are no problem at all. Non apis bees - the not social living wild bees are much more tricky and this is a group of insects where I need my 200 mm. Maybe it depends also on the region where you live. In gerneral, wild animals are more shy if they live in regions with dense human zivilisation - and the region I live in is almost extreme. For taking photos of butterlies (except of the very common ones) my 200 mm is not enough - I have to go longer regarding the focal length. Bugs and beetles are usually not so shy and 100 mm is enough. Dragonflies can be easily cheated. You have to come near to them in steps - short moments of move and then stop - they don't manage to realise this kind movement and you can almost pet them (just joking).

If it comes to macro work, you do not need a lens with wide aperture, as you will have to close it upt to f 8 - f 13 (the range I prefer). Macro work often needs additional light and it is easier to prepare a setup with good illumination for a 100 mm lens than for a 200 mm lens, as light gets weaker with the square of distance.

No matter what's your decision - you can't get wrong. All lenses on your list are very good. The prices you were talking about are fair. Especially the ones with the longer focal length seem to be almost cheap. I am into the Pentax system where it is not so easy to get used macro lenses with longer focal lenght. Maybe the prices I think of are not relevant for your system for this reason - something that is rare will be expensive, too.

If you are willing to give more money for a new lens, this one looks interesting for me:

https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-100mm-f-2-8-2x-macro-apo/

The advantage is a better macro range. Most 100 mm macro lenses end at 1:1 magnification (where accorind definition macro just starts). The Laowa lens allows to go to 2x magnficiation. And regarding the optics, this lens seems to be up to date. If I would buy a new macro lens, I would decide for this one.

The lens is not AF (and aperture not controlled by the camera except of Canon). The AF is no problem as in macro range AF is almost useless. I go a little to the front and back, almost swinging with very small applitude around the optimal focus and try to take the photo at the right moment. This works much better than AF to me. Regarding the not controlled aperture the ease of using the lens is a little limited.

Best regards

Holger

ken_in_nh wrote:

You've received lots of interesting advice regarding lenses, macro, technique and so forth. One can study the subject to death, or one can just get out there and start shooting.

Indeed, I'm doing photography for myself and my closest mostly and not the masses per se, so I'm simply trying to expand and explore as much as I can. I am a firm believer of not having to stick to simply one or two different types of photography. Why not explore as many genres as you can and see what you can do. It also brings a lot of diversity as I am able to focus on different kinds of photography all year around.

Put somewhat extremely there's winter and little natural light more or less half the year where I live, great opportunities for astro, auroras and during spring/summer lots of insects and plants to explore with a macro view. Not that one cannot do either at different times of the year, but my point is I try to expand and always have options to explore regardless.

Advice is always welcome and by my account there aren't any stupid questions only bad answers

Lenses and lighting are important, but so is composition, subject matter, approach, intended use (huge gallery prints vs social media posts viewed on a smartphone, for instance) and so forth. Lots of variables.

Anyone who takes any part of the photographic hobby seriously will find that their equipment, technique and approaches evolves with time. I doubt much, for example, that John started out caring as much about lighting as he does now!

Certainly, I've been delving into loads of different things in a relatively short time. Adapting, astro and now more seriously considering macro etc. So I constantly try to evolve and don't want any limitations.

Perhaps the key is to just do something. There is no best choice. (and with lenses, especially used, copy to copy variation makes "best" even more iffy. My best may well not be yours.)

I agree, this is how I work basically. I didn't have any plan for ecxactly what I'd plan to shoot when I posted this. I only decided that I want a macro lens that was also suited for astro (which applies to many of them), and was looking for hands on experiences with the selection I put together. I didn't intend to annoy anyone if that has been the case, but I don't really see how/why it could be tbh.

Just don't forget the most important aspects of this hobby: go have fun. and experiment.

Amen to that!

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.

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.

gardenersassistant wrote:

RazorSharpWO wrote:

If super-close focus is your real goal, take up look at Gardner's Assistant's blog, he has a lot of experience shooting a huge variety of subjects, almost all of which is greater than 1:1.

Thanks, but even if the OP is interested in going beyond 1:1 I think he should steer clear of my stuff, for two reasons he mentions in this post above:

• He writes "This post is still more about choosing the right lens of the available selection. That's why I want actual user experience to aid me in my own decision making". I have no relevant experience with any of the lenses he mentions.
• He writes "However, I am concerned with capturing fine detail. Like many I'm possibly cursed that way." I produce invertebrate images that are devoid of fine detail and produce flower images at a small size where any fine detail that was captured is not visible.

And for flowers etc there is another reason: I use two techniques , both of which are unlikely to be available to the OP because of the lenses he is interested in and by implication the camera systems he is interested in.

I believe, as you and others have clearly explained, what equipment would be suitable depends on what exactly the OP will be wanting to do, or more appropriately perhaps at this stage given the OP's uncertainty about that, what range of subjects, sizes etc he wishes to explore to work out what he will be wanting to do. In either case, my approach and the type of kit I use isn't it! (IMO)

I did have a look at your photos and just wanted to know I appreciated them and found them very good, I'm not sure this is exactly what I'll be trying to do as you say, but they were excellent!

Also, thank you for taking the time to reply, despite not having experience with the lenses in question.

Your photos are brilliant!