Sigma 105mm f2.8 or 150mm f2.8 Macro?

Woodsy

Woodsy

Messages
7,620
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.

Need some more good advice from the masses.

My question is really one of necessity. I am looking to get a macro lens for my D50.

The two on my short list are as per the title. Considering the rather large price gap, is the 150mm worth the extra cash on the 105mm? The 150mm has HSM, APO glass, etc etc, where as the 105mm is just an EX lens. Does anyone have any comments on the two? More importantly, does anyone have any problems with either? As for what I shall be shooting, Well that is undecided at the moment, its really a case of the best lens for the price.

Not being one to stick only to what I know (having got/had a few sigma lenses already), I am open to suggestions of other lenses as well with similar specs and price. This does however rule out the Nikon 105, as that cost a fortune :D

Many thanks in advance :)
 
Joe T said:
The 105mm is also HSM, and I think its APO too.
Click to expand...

Just had a gander on the Sigma website, the 105 is neither HSM or APO it would seem?

However, according to the reviews that King just posted, Many thanks btw, the 105 seems to perform better in CA, Vignetting and MTF tests. Coupled with the significantly lower price tag, it does look much more favourable.

Any direct rivals?
 
The 105 is a GREAT lens. Ive the lder non DG version and I'm not selling it.
Sharp and very crisp. Not as contrasty as L series, but then its not in that price bracket (and you are using a Nikon).

- Portraiture (on a 1:1 or 1:1.3 (or at a push 1:1.6 body) is totally excellent.
- Macro and still life are fantastic.

However...
- Dont attempt to do sport photography with it.. not even Dachsund races.
Might be OK with greased tortoises, but thats about it.
Focusing is not the fastest.

Depending on what you are intending to shoot then this lens gets a (y) from me.
 
If you want a 105 field of view then the sigma 70mm f2.8 macro is rated quite highly. Will be pretty good for portraits too.

King.
 
Thanks for the help guys, I really appreciate it. Shall have to think about it a little more. I'm inclined towards the 105mm at the moment, as that seems to have the best balance of performance to price.

Again, many thanks indeed :)
 
As Joe suggested above, you might want to take a look at the Tamron 90mm as well.

According to this review it's optically as good or better than the Nikon 105 VR micro, which means it's probably very good indeed. (Scroll down through the 105 VR review to get to the Tamron 90 review)
 
Also, given that for macro you probably want to be focussing manually anyhow, you might want to consider the AI or AIS 55 micro-nikkor. They go for about £200 quid used but in good nick and they're usually fairly plentiful at Aperture, Grays, Ffordes etc.

No bells and whistles, but it's a very good little lens and can do double duty as a wicked sharp short-tele.

For only a little more you can get a very decent used AF 60 micro if you don't want to muck about with figuring exposure using the histogram. Now that the 105 VR is out, you should also be able to get a bargain on the previous model AF-D 105/2.8 micro.
 
It all depends on what you want to use it for.
If you are going to use it for insect photography you'll probably want to go for the longer lens.

If you want a lens around the 100mm range, the Tamron 90mm wins every time when it comes to image quality.

If I was going to buy a new macro lens it would be the sigma 150, the image quality is excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top