Lets talk Macro Lenses

WayupthereWayupthere Registered Users Posts: 179 Major grins
edited February 5, 2012 in Accessories
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

Comments

  • zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    I have the Sigma 150 really good lens for macro.
    Also good for other things as it is sharp wide open at 2.8.
  • basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    i have them both , and both are very good
    i cant think of one argument why the Sigma would be better ( or less )
  • basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    zoomer wrote: »
    distance from subject
    yes , but that makes not much different , because of longer focal length , and is not very important IMO

    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

    ne_nau.gif
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    Things to Think about with True macro lenses
    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 ...
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • WayupthereWayupthere Registered Users Posts: 179 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    Thanks for all of the responses. I dont have any macros as of yet. Back in my film days I shot a lot of macro and I too liked the lens that you could get a little farther back with.
    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 mwink.gif
    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
  • basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    does not matter very much where its build
    i would say , go for a recent Sigma model
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    150
    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
  • racefanracefan Registered Users Posts: 133 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2012
    i bought the tamron 180mm macro and the little bit that i have used it (still learning macro) i love it, its only a constant f/3.5 but its not that much more then a f/2.8....
  • WayupthereWayupthere Registered Users Posts: 179 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2012
    More reply's..Thanks! As to where the lens is made, I have no fear the Nikon plants in China make good products. But as some one that makes his living manufacturing products..I cant support China.
    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
  • In MotionIn Motion Registered Users Posts: 22 Big grins
    edited February 1, 2012
    I just bought bought the Tamron 90mm. I'm very happy with it. Bought it off e-bay for $389 delivered

    DSC0008-L.jpg
  • WayupthereWayupthere Registered Users Posts: 179 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2012
    In Motion, Nice first post for sure. Don't know what that is but it looks good! mwink.gif
    Gary
  • In MotionIn Motion Registered Users Posts: 22 Big grins
    edited February 1, 2012
    Thanks! It is a mushroom coral in my reef aquarium.
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited February 5, 2012
    The Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX Macro gets rave reviews. That would be the one if I was looking for a small & non-Canon Macro thumb.gif
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
Sign In or Register to comment.