1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

nikkor 105 2.8 micro vs. sigma 150 macro hsm

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mrsollars, Apr 12, 2007.

  1. assume the following

    i have
    17-50 2.8
    50 1.8
    getting 80-200 2.8

    and i want a macro. right now it's the 500D (used with the 80-200) vs. sigma 150 macro hsm vs. nikkor 105 2.8 (non vr)

    COST being an issue.....which option above would you go with??

  2. Cost being an issue, I bought my Sigma 150 from a fellow Cafe member, used, great price, mint condition, and I love it!!! It cost probably less than 1/2 of a new 105VR. BUT, I needed the reach of the 150 + 1.4TC for the kind of critters I shoot.
  3. i was referring to the NON vr version.

    thanks for the input.

    with the 150.....do you find it hard to handhold macro shots?
  4. JimCo


    Feb 16, 2006
    Sublimity, Oregon
    The 150 feels nicely balanced on both my D70 and D200. The nice thing is it doesn't change length when focusing so the balance stays the same.

    As with any lens of any focal length, handhold-ability is dependent on shutter speed vs. focal length and other conditions (flash, etc.). At macro, I have a tendency to need more than the standard SS matching FL as I'm pretty shaky.

    However, here is a hand held shot at 1/100s of some small ants trying to drag a dead bee off my driveway. I cheated in that I was lying in a prone position with my elbows firmly on the cement, plus I used flash. Notice the very narrow DOF at f8.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    A couple of side notes: It took the army of ants 20 minutes to move the bee about 2 feet off of the driveway. It seemed that there was a constant changing of ants taking over the job of moving the bee but only 5 to 7 at a time doing the pushing pulling and carrying (there were a couple of ants under the bee).

    Another note: I hadn't realized how rough my driveway was until I processed these shots. i am much more careful with my pressure washer nowadays.
  5. Cost being an issue have you looked at the Tamron 90 or Tokina 100 macros? Either is only 399 after rebate from B&H.

    Also the 90/100/105 can be used as a portrait lens, the 150 is a little long. Not that the 80-200 or 150 can't, its just the others are at that more traditional length.
  6. jimmyc1000


    Jun 14, 2006
    If macro photography is what you are after I would go with the Sigma 150. I have both the 105/2.8 AF-D and the Sigma 150/2.8 HSM. Optical quality are very similar. Focusing speed is very similar as well. The Sigma has a built-in tripod collar which is very nice for macro work. It also gives you a little bit more working distance over the 105mm. Cost should be about the same. Both are built very well so that should not be an issue. If I had to have one it would be the Sigma.
  7. so does every feel that the sig. 150 and the TC is the way to go.(and get a good length lens later)......
    it's opposition being the 80-200 with the 500D (and get a dedicated macro later)
  8. Well the Tc on the 150 will give you an f4 lens 210mm fixed in addition to the 150 f2.8 fixed for telelphoto.

    The 80-200 will give you the 80-200 f2.8 telephoto with the ability to do closeup.

    I think it's more a question for you, which is the main area you are trying to fill first? Telephoto or Marco. Neither solution will be the best for both areas. But either will work while you are learning and until you can get a better solution for the other area.
  9. the obvious answer...i just don't want to be the one to have to make the decision :confused: 

    the lenght is probably #1 and the macro is probably #2. but i don't know.
    i'm still looking

    we'll see.

  10. oh....and if i go with the 150 sigma.......

    what teleconverter is ''the one'' to buy.

    i know some work with some lenses...others don't??? 1.4x 1.7x 2.0x???

    point me in the right direction...:biggrin:

  11. I use the Sigma 1.4 APO TC with the 150 macro. It is a superb combination providing images difficult to tell from those taken without it.
  12. bep207


    Nov 27, 2006
    Columbia, MO
    perhaps I am ignorant... the 150 f/2.8 has an aperture of 2.8 at one focal length,
    the 80-200 f/2.8 as that same aperture through an entire range, that includes 150mm...
    I believe the magnifcation ratio with the 80-200 and 500D is close to 1:1. Therefore I don't see any advantage of the 150. It is limited in it's range (fixed focal length) and bears no other obvious distinct advantages.
    Please correct me if I am wrong though.
  13. Sigma lens, Sigma TC, I would look at the 1.4

    It's very simple, image quality. It really is that simple.
  14. It's very simple, image quality. It really is that simple.[/QUOTE]

    i'm not sure what you mean? are you saying that the 80-200 with the 500D is inferior in image quality to the 150 with the 1.4 TC???

    i can't imagine something being markedly superior in image quality to some of the 80-200 shots. Do you have any comparisons or images from both that i could take a look at.

    if the 150 IQ ....IS....that much better....is it enough to justify purchasing it as a dedicated macro AND a zoom lens??? i would hate have the 100mm gap between 50mm-150mm. it seems to me smarter to cover that range as well for a minor hit in image quality. from everything i've read the IQ on the 80-200 is second to none.

    Lens decisions drive me crazy.

    thank you all for the help.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.