Macro lens advice... looking for a sharp lens

evilonion

evilonion

Messages
802
Name
Dave Peacock
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok i have decided against the nikon 24-70 for now as i feel its overkill price wise for the photography i do.

so with the saving made there i have decided to get a couple of primes and a decent macro.
I am currently shooting with a 50mm 1.8 and a 250 raynox but id like to take things a bit further... what would be a good upgrade?

I was looking at:
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM Macro

Good choice of lens or would i be better off sticking with nikon? Is the sigma sharp at 2.8? Previous sigma lenses i have used always seem to be soft at the max aperture and then sharp from f6.8 above... is this the same with their macro lenses?

If thats the case would i be better off with a lens like the nikon 105mm non vr?
 
The sigma is a great lens for if you need a bit more focal length than the normal 100-ish mm macro lenses, mine is superbly sharp throughout the aperture range (diffraction at very small apertures excepted).

I wrote a quick review up here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=252447

(just added a few more samples as well, check the bottom of the thread).

There are also plenty of reviews available from lens review websites if you google it, all report it as an excellent lens.

Compared to the 105 (never used one, but you can compare a lot from the specs)
The 150mm should be better for:
Working distance (useful for skittish insects)
Background blur (longer focal lengths give more diffuse backgrounds which can be nice for flowers and the sort)
Use with raynox, the 150mm can work well with the raynox DCR 250 for getting really close up

The 105mm should be better for:
Handholding (lighter, shorter focal length and VR)
Doubling as a portrait lens, on a crop body this is probably as nicer focal length (the 150mm could be too tight, I have found my 150mm works excellently for outdoor portraits though)
Extension tubes are more effective on the shorter focal length.

105mm VR users can probably elaborate a bit more on the advantages of the 105.

Or if you want to save more money, the tamron 90mm and sigma 105mm are also superb alternatives.
 
Last edited:
wow thanks for the great advice :)
well my main style is hand holding. i generally get up close to everything having been using the 50mm.

Would the 90mm tamron be better suited for that?
assuming the 150mm would make it very hit and miss getting things in focus handholding due to slight movements etc?
 
Thanks, had read those before but always feel its better to get hands on reviews/advice from forum members.
Have been reading a few reviews about the sigma and it seems to be getting quite a good rep for sharpness and range.

Im not bothered about auto focus as i shoot in manual.
I just want to be able to get zoomed right in to my victims :)
 
I have the nikkor 105micro - very nice lens and compared to kit/18-200vr I had way crisper. Couple of tubes give you more magnifications.

However, if you really want those dragon fly pics, then you will need to go for the 150 sigma or 180 sigma. Both are 1:1 ratio and are meant to be good/great.

If you can, borrow a len or two from someone to test it since the lenses aren't cheap.

Links to 105mm pics on the flickr in the siggy
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
Compared to the 105 (never used one, but you can compare a lot from the specs)
The 150mm should be better for:
Working distance (useful for skittish insects)
Background blur (longer focal lengths give more diffuse backgrounds which can be nice for flowers and the sort)
Use with raynox, the 150mm can work well with the raynox DCR 250 for getting really close up

The 105mm should be better for:
Handholding (lighter, shorter focal length and VR)
Doubling as a portrait lens, on a crop body this is probably as nicer focal length (the 150mm could be too tight, I have found my 150mm works excellently for outdoor portraits though)
Extension tubes are more effective on the shorter focal length.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty good summary, I'd say. (Though I don't know anything about Raynox so I'm taking that on trust.) The 105 VR is a more versatile lens, but the 150 may a bit better for macro use because of the advantages listed here.
 
Thanks for all the inputs.
I'll be going with the sigma 150mm macro.
I'm not looking to use the lens for anything other than macro and tend to manual focus so the slow af doesnt worry me.
I'm looking forward to seeing just how close i can get with a raynox attached :D
 
The AF isn't actually that slow in the normal range, it's just that if it has to hunt for the subject it will get slowed down a lot by the fact it has to hunt through the very close ranges (where the motor is slowed to allow precision for when you're trying to get focus on a very close object).

I find the AF fine for use as a general medium telephoto, I tend to leave the limiter on (stops the AF going into the very close ranges), and sometimes give the MF ring a tug in the right direction to help it acquire a lock.

I believe with the DCR-250 you can get between 2:1 and 3:1 mag, which is very close.
You need an extra stepping ring for use with the raynox though (costs about £5), since the filter thread is too large for the "universal adaptor".
If you're really serious about using the raynox its worth replacing that plastic ring altogether with a series of metal rings (you need 3 I think to go from 43mm to 72mm, at least I haven't found a set that'll let me do it in two yet).

The raynox lenses work fine on the 105mm as well, just that longer focal lengths give more mag with them. It's the same vice versa with extension tubes (shorter focal length gives more mag, but they can work fine on the 150mm).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top