Macro work Sigma 150mm Vs Nikon 105mm VR

stu_the_flat

stu_the_flat

Messages
2,443
Name
Stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
One of my friends has asked me to recommend them a good macro lens.

I don't do Macro work (Although I would like to borrow his to try it out!)

I want to recommend him the Sigma 150mm instead of the Nikon 105mm VR. I have two resoans for this.

Marco work is done with small armatures on a tripod so I can't see the advantage of VR. I also prefer to mount heavy lenses via a tripod collar has they are more stable.

Can I ask what you guys think before I recommend it?

Stuart
 
Nikon every time - there's a reason they command such high prices on the second-hand market - the old pre-VR versions still regularly change hands for upwards of £500 on ebay...
 
If the macro work your friend is contemplating is of static or near static subjects then a tripod mounted lens is definitely to be preferred and IS (VR) are of less use.

If however the macro work is more in the line of butterfly chasing and beetle wrangling then trying to carry and set up a tripod while scampering across country is enough to turn a man to drink. In this case IS can be very useful and be big heavy lenses can be difficult to hold still enough for accepteble IQ.

In summary:

for fast moving wilddlife macro, 100mm IS ( I use the canon 100m IS macro lens)

I don't know about the Nikon macro IS but certainly with the Canon 100mm lens althought the IS is superb and at non macro distances you get about a 4 stop advantage, at 1:1 you only get about a 1 or 2 stop advantage. I would imagine the same would apply to the Nikon lens though.

For relatively static subjects tripod mounted lens of whatever focal length suits the user.
 
I would get the nikon for several reasons

VR is useful, I shot handhheld and on manual focus rocking in and out to get focus, macro on a tripod is a real PITA.

Not sure about the Sigma but the nikon has internal focus so the lens stays the same physical size.

As Arkady said there is a reason second hand ones still command such a high price.

I have used mine with a 1.4tc and a full set of tubes with no noticeable loss of IQ.
 
I have both lenses and definitely the best is Zeiss 100mm f2! If this is too expensive, then the second macro option is Sigma 150mm f2.8. This lens is probably the best one produced by Sigma and gives unbelievable results. It has internal focus too, is not much heavier than 105mm f2.8 VR considering the difference in focal length and the tripod collar is helping a lot. Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is a good lens but if you put it side by side with Zeiss and Sigma then you leave it behind. I don't own but I tested once... and I found Tamron 90 mm f2.8 and Tokina 100mm f2.8 being optically as good as Nikon 105 VR is... You can decide if having VR deserves the huge price difference.
 
Nikon VR doesn't work with macro - I had the Siggy 150mm on a D300 (among others) and the IQ is excellent (I'm currently looking for one to replace my Canon 100mm Macro), the only thing is its heavy and it takes sometime to get used to handholding - which is the only way to shoot macro if its live things your after. To get the beat out of a macro lens you also need a flash.
 
stu_the_flat said:
I would love the Zeiss 100mm f2. I'll start saving! :D
Click to expand...

No matter how long will take to save, believe me that it deserves the effort! A piece of glass like this really make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top