nikkor 105 2.8 micro vs. sigma 150 macro hsm

Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Oak Grove, Missouri
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??

thanks
matt
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
11,564
Location
Southern California
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.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
528
Location
Sublimity, Oregon
with the 150.....do you find it hard to handhold macro shots?
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.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,543
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
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??

thanks
matt
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.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
300
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.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Oak Grove, Missouri
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)
??????
thanks
matt
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,543
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
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.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Oak Grove, Missouri
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.

matt
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Oak Grove, Missouri
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:

matt
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
300
Location
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.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Oak Grove, Missouri
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.
matt
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom