Lets talk Macro Lenses
Wayupthere
Registered Users Posts: 179 Major grins
Lets talk Macro Lenses :clap
So I thought this Nikkor 105mm lens would be a good way to go..but the body has a plastic center piece :huh
Does this mean it is no good..No of course not..but..I hate plastic
http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/productID.213472900
So I found this Sigma that looks pretty good
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro-sigma
And they are made in Japan, so does anybody have good things to say about the Sigma?
Thanks,
Gary
So I thought this Nikkor 105mm lens would be a good way to go..but the body has a plastic center piece :huh
Does this mean it is no good..No of course not..but..I hate plastic
http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/productID.213472900
So I found this Sigma that looks pretty good
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro-sigma
And they are made in Japan, so does anybody have good things to say about the Sigma?
Thanks,
Gary
0
Comments
Also good for other things as it is sharp wide open at 2.8.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
i cant think of one argument why the Sigma would be better ( or less )
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
as for quality , they are related , more or less
if one wants more magnification , better use tubes and/ or teleconverter
the extra 45mm length of the Sigma wont help too much
the Nikkor gets closer , and closer is often better , or not ?
if OP allready has the Nikkor , i'd say use it ,
if not , take the Sigma , and get the extra 45mm
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
1:1 magnification at its closest focusing distance ... so in theory... if 2 identical cameras are used and the only difference is the focal length of the lens the images of the same subject from the lenses closest focusing distance and angle should ultimately be the same in theory. Meaning both will provide a 1:1 mag or lifesized image on the imager (sensor or film).
closest working distance ...if lens A is 6 inches and lens B is 18 inches ..give me Lens B because now I have plenty of room for using flash, or reflectors if needed also if I am shooting anything but plant life I want to be back so crawly slithery things have farther to jump, strike and bite....I prefer the extra distance ...now I do also HATE lenses that have a minimum focus distance of 4 feet and farther...for my style of shooting these lenses are almost useless because it means that I either have to crop in post to get the desired effect or I have to change lenses ..this is something I hate also when working for me using a macro designated lens (whether actual 1:1 or even 1:4 lifesize) I ke my working distance (closest focusing distance) to be 18 inches at the longest but not less that 10 inches ... this way if I am trying to get a shot of an eye I can get just the eye ... no eye lid, lashes, or skin ... ... I will get just the eye and in some cases just the pupil ...
I looked at the 200mm Nikkor, but its made in china now :nah
So moved to the 105..with the plastic..:nah but it has the new VR which in theory should be a good thing
Thats why I was looking at the Sigma. I don't "think" I have ever shot any of their stuff, but its all made in Japan and that is a good thing.
Not in a hurry, and seems like a lot of Macro shooters here so I figured someone had shot them.
Thanks,
Gary
i would say , go for a recent Sigma model
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
more ££/$$
Bigger
Heavier
harder to handhold
Need longer extension (ie more tubes) to get equivalent mag > 1:1
Harder to get decent light (for true macro work) if using flash as need longer, heavier macro arms = greater mass(es) on longer levers, because of longer mfd.
Nicer bokeh (probably)
Better than 100 when physically cannot get as near as you'd prefer for environmental / practical reasons
Irrelevant where stuff's made these days imo - it's all about quality control and reputation loss (or not)
Greater working distance (generally) better for skittish subjects ... but the chances are that something that's going to let you get to mfd with a 150 will probably also let you get to mfd with a 100/105. (bear in mind that ppl using a mpe 65 @ 5:1 have a wd of 40mm ...)
A lot depends (imo) on exactly what sort of subjects you want to shoot, how big in frame you want them to be ...and whether it's going to be natural light or not. If flash,you need to budget for some sort of flash, which is a subject in its own right.
Bear in mind that the term macro is often used to describe 'close - up' shots ... which are a different ballgame.
pp
never used a 150, but have (and use) 100/180/mpe, btw
Flickr
Just a personal line in the sand, which I have to cross for more and more products anymore :bluduh
Speaking of which I actually machined a product for my D700 yesterday..until ups showed up with a part I was waiting for..and then back to reality :bluduh
I will be very busy for the next few weeks as a new bike just rolled in the door. So let the measuring and fitting begin...its got to be warm enough to ride bikes somewhere :pissed
So I will take this time to look at all of the major brands of Macro lenses. If someone has a favorite that we have not talked about, then feel free to wave its flag.
And I will be using this as a true macro not for closeups, and size and weight are a plus for me.
Thanks for the info,
Gary
Gary
― Edward Weston