DSLRUsers.com

I'm thinking it's time to fill some more space in my camera bag

More factually I'm seriously considering a macro lens (principle use - flowers and bugs). As I see it there are 3 choices (I have a Nikon D2x) - The Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or the Nikon 105mm VR Micro

The first two of these are similarly priced (circa $500) while the Nikkor is twice that. I've had a play with both the Tamron & the Nikkor thanks to Jenno, but have yet to do so with the Sigma.

I'd be interested in any comments on your experience with any of these lenses for macro work.

Peter,

I have used the Tamron and Nikon myself, my thought on them both are superb lenses with sharp optics.

The Nikon, it does a great job with VR when you're in a rush in the outdoors, or where you have simply forgot your tripod. But will you justify the extra price in getting AF-S, VR and a phony name coating "nano-crystal"??

My point is, if you are soley using this new lens for macro, I see no reason in getting fancy high tech stuff if you're gonna setup tripod and manual focus afterall.

Im no professional in the field that I run around for shots and because I didnt have time to setup macro position to miss a money shot. This may be your case, then go with the Nikkor at no hesitation.

I have yet to use/try the Sigma 105, but I have heard and seen many great shots taken with it, should be a plus next to the Tamron for little bit extra working space (for the bugs).

Are you also considering in getting any light setup for the macro shots?

Peter - I have the 105mm Sigma (see http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?p=258963#258963 but I would be more inclined to go for the Sigma 150 or 180mm for the added reach. Just my thoughts

Peter, as Yip has said, you will most likely be using it in manual focus.
I have the Sigma 105 and I find that in AF mode when shooting macro, unless you have very defined lines, it tends to hunt a fair bit. It is a sharp lens though. If you're ever down my way, you're welcome to try it out.

sirhc55 wrote:Peter - I have the 105mm Sigma (see http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?p=258963#258963 but I would be more inclined to go for the Sigma 150 or 180mm for the added reach. Just my thoughts

Interesting comment Chris. Adds to my choices. The 150 is $745 here and the 180 is around $835 on EBAY from DigitalRev

From the other comments here and some reading it seems the Sigma 105 is slow on AF. I'd have to say the greater reach of the Sigma 150 or 180 didn't occur to me (I was just thinking macro). They have a slightly larger close focusing distance (38 and 46 cm respectively vs 31cm for the 105) though

Just to clarify, the AF in general shooting (not macro) in the 105 is not bad.
If you don't like getting too close to spiders or other creepy crawlys, you may consider the 150 or 180 though.

I just got the sigma 105mm ($490) 2 weeks ago, very nice, I love it. I find the AF ok...but never used the Tamron or Nikkor. But I think you will be using MF more on a macro. Below image was taken the day after I got the lens at a wedding, hand hold available light. I was also looking at the 150 and 180..but I decided I do not require that in my type of photography.

Peter,

what took you so long ??

I recently got the Tamron 90mm and find it very nice. I haven't had to much of a chance to use it yet but all that I have read about it was pretty good. For the price, one of the nicest macro lens you can get.

Get the Sigma or Tamron. Use it for 1, 2, 12 months or more. If you find you really would like a more substantial lens like the Nikkor 105, you won't have trouble selling the Sigma or the Tamron.

When we were at the gardens, I had Jenno's Sigma 180mm. It is a big lens and you pretty much need a tripod if you want the DOF because you will have to close down the aperture. It's not an easy lens to just take out for a quick shot, unlike the 90mm Tamron. Unless you see yourself needing the reach, stick with one of your original choices.

Cheers,

André

I have the Sigma 105 and I like it.

Build quality is alright, not as good as Sigma 70-200 certainly.

You are welcome to borrow it and have a play.


How will you fit another lens into your bag? I have lots of trouble since getting the 70-200.

Peter - here is a website with examples of the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM in action on a D200. It also makes for a very nice light weight and fast telephoto lens as well:-

http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/roses2006

Hope you like roses!

I have this lens and should you want to borrow it for 2-3 weeks for evaluation, just send me a PM.

fozzie

Peter
I bought the 105 Nikkor VR a couple of weeks ago and am impressed with the lens. I have used it very little yet but have found in hand held macro work my problem is to not "sway" the subject in and out of focus.

These are the first two shots taken http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php? ... 105#256394

Iam also going to try the lens for a bit of portrait work in a couple of weeks time and will post some results. I also used the lens for a couple of landscape shots on my recent trip and liked the results, except a uv filter may have helped in the harsh light. Smugmug is currently down so can't post any more shots atm.

But the best thing about the lens is the look and the name, worth every $$.

Craig

Thank you all for your comments and especially to those who've kindly offered me a loaner either here or via PM so I can evaluate and decide.

The generosity of the people here never ceases to amaze me.

You won't go astray with any in your selection but as Chris mentioned working distance is definitely a consideration. Go with the Sigma 150HSM Macro. I have one and it is excellent, sharpness fast AF lovely bokeh and contrast. Good luck with the decision.
cheers
marco

Peter - I've got the old nonVR 105 Nikon, and have gotten some decent shots with the lens But I honestly think whichever lens you get, you'll get great shots - so try to get a feel of each one, and take which one feels best to you

Looking forward to your macros

OK

Here is another 2 questions. I'm thinking I'll need a tripod for any macros I take because of my shaky old hands Is that the usual experience - need a tripod for decent pics?

Also - to get decent shots - how close do you need to get with the lenses you each use? and is this ever an issue (eg some public places - gardens for example, you may not have close enough access)

stubbsy wrote:OK

Here is another 2 questions. I'm thinking I'll need a tripod for any macros I take because of my shaky old hands Is that the usual experience - need a tripod for decent pics?

Also - to get decent shots - how close do you need to get with the lenses you each use? and is this ever an issue (eg some public places - gardens for example, you may not have close enough access)

A tripod that can go low on ground level and have a changeable centre column is a plus for macro works. It allows you to get low and get your camera away from the lens to work better on focus and lights.


RE: 2nd question, it all depends how big is your subject.
To get 1:1 magnification, you need to be at 1 foot (0.3m) focus from the film plane. That is VERY close...

Normally, somewhere at 3ft can do a very good job, that is why a longer focal length should help you here...

Peter - I've got the Tamron 90mm and love it. Easy to use, nice build quality and a great price. Compact as well. I also love the 9 blade diaphragm and what it does for bokeh. Magic!

Some examples here but keep in mind I'm only new to macro.

Peter,

I am not surprised most members who use the respective brands are happy to recommend then to you. They are all good.

As you are aware I had both the Tamron 90 and the Nikon 105VR and the results from both are comparable although I must admit to getting more keepers from the 105 but that may be simply maturing technique.

The benefit of the 105 to me is the internal focussing. Both the Tamron and the sigma extends during focussing so if you get serious later and want to use the R1 C1 lighting system then I believe the 105 is better suited. I was a bit concerned the weight of the 2 flash units attached to the filter screw may damage the focussing mechanism on the Tamron afterall its not designed for this purpose.

I definately use the 105 more than the Tamron 180mm due to the need to use either a monopod or tripod with the 180 to maximise sharp results. But much depends on the subject matter. Bugs or BFlys demand working distance

I would use a monopod more than a tripod simply for ease of use (bugs wont hang around waiting while you set up a tripod) but I find the Gitzo G2227 tripod the most fexible for macro when I choose to use it. Benro has an equivalent model

Hope this helps

Ray

Jenno wrote:Both the Tamron and the sigma extends during focussing so if you get serious later and want to use the R1 C1 lighting system then I believe the 105 is better suited. I was a bit concerned the weight of the 2 flash units attached to the filter screw may damage the focussing mechanism on the Tamron afterall its not designed for this purpose.

Good advice there Ray. Not something I really wanted to hear but good advice anyway.

I have Sigma 105 DG EX & am very happy with it.
I use it quit often with reversed 50mm Nikkor lens for even higher magnification.
It does have some issues with slow/hunting focusing, but picture quality is great, some say better then Nikon or Tamron.
One thing to remember with Tamron 180mm lens is Filter Effect Control. Basically it means you can rotate front ring - great for filters, not so great if you use macro ring flash.
I will be getting Sigma 180mm some time soon as I find extra distance between subject & front element would be great, especially when shooting insects.
I also use Sigma Sigma EM-140 DG Ring Flash.
PM me if you would like to try them for yourself to make up your mind.

Cheers.

One more opinion, if I may, and a slightly different one.

I'm a big fan of Nikon's short macros (the 55mm and 60mm). They're well suited for flowers and bugs. I used to own the 55mm f/3.5 AI for years until I sold it in a fit of insanity. Two years on I fixed that hole in my soul with a 55mm f/2.8 AiS from eBay. They have them there in excellent condition for around $250. The 55mm lenses, esp the f/2.8 are the sharpest 35mm lenses Nikon ever made, sharper even than the superb 50mm f/1.8 or 180mm f/2.8.

They've got all the traits of the old guild: tank-like build, smooooth long-throw focus, etc. The only things they haven't got is AF and VR.

You might try your luck on eBay, it is the cheapest possible ticket into high-quality macro.

I, too, would be glad to lend you mine, if you give me in writing that you will return it...

Cheers
Steffen.

One final comment/suggestion.

You can use the 1.7 TC with the 105VR (which you already own) and have the best of both worlds = 105 & 180mm

Jenno wrote:One final comment/suggestion.

You can use the 1.7 TC with the 105VR (which you already own) and have the best of both worlds = 105 & 180mm

That brings you down over the life size magnification as well. Somewhere in the 2:1x mag

Jenno wrote:Peter,

I am not surprised most members who use the respective brands are happy to recommend then to you. They are all good.

As you are aware I had both the Tamron 90 and the Nikon 105VR and the results from both are comparable although I must admit to getting more keepers from the 105 but that may be simply maturing technique.

The benefit of the 105 to me is the internal focussing. Both the Tamron and the sigma extends during focussing so if you get serious later and want to use the R1 C1 lighting system then I believe the 105 is better suited. I was a bit concerned the weight of the 2 flash units attached to the filter screw may damage the focussing mechanism on the Tamron afterall its not designed for this purpose.

I definately use the 105 more than the Tamron 180mm due to the need to use either a monopod or tripod with the 180 to maximise sharp results. But much depends on the subject matter. Bugs or BFlys demand working distance

I would use a monopod more than a tripod simply for ease of use (bugs wont hang around waiting while you set up a tripod) but I find the Gitzo G2227 tripod the most fexible for macro when I choose to use it. Benro has an equivalent model

Hope this helps

Ray

The R1C1 does not have a mounting ring that suits the Sigma 105mm but I use a mounting ring attached to the lens hood. There are no problems using the R1C1 on the Sigma with this setup. The weight is negligible.

I can't restrain myself from an entirely biased (but ecstatic) recommendation of the nikkor, soley because I got it on friday and have been solidly shooting with it since. I spent all of today grovelling (handheld, no flash) in a garden. I even believe the VR improves handheld images at 1:1 if you hold your breath and control your heart beat. The AF can sometimes be just plain impossible up close, it is still nice and quick to travel.

Thank you all for your input. On Monday I'm getting a loaner Tamron 90 for a play. At this stage I've narrowed it down to the Sigma 105, Sigma 150 or Tamron 90. On paper (a bad, bad thing - I know) the Sigma 150 is ahead by a whisker, but once I've played with these things will be a lot clearer.

Good luck Peter - I know you'll have fun!

So what is the advantage of a longer macro lens other than the fact that you dont have to get as close to your subjects? (some of whom sting and bite!).

I am keen for a 60mm Nikkor Macro but it seems that it isnt as popular in this thread. Am I missing something?

Peter,

have you considered Kenko ?
Kenko will work with allmost all of your lenses.
Kenko comes in three different sizes.
Kenko is small, light and very effectful.
In fact I keep a Kenko in my bag all the time.
This what Kenko can do with the 50mm f1.8:



Cheers,
CD