Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro v. Nikon 105mm f/2.8 micro VR lens

NavyMoose

At the end of this week, there is going to be a show held by the local pro shop, Hunt's Photo Video. They have reps from all the biggies with lower than usual pricing.

Anyway, I'm giving lots of thought to adding a macro to my stable of lenses. The Nikon is great because it has VR, but the price is almost $760 at B&H and the Sigma is around $400. I'm using B&H as my guide for this exercise.

On another forum I heard from people who own each and are satisfied. The test reports from each seem good.

Does anyone here have hands on experience using both of these lenses who can tell me how they feel about them?

This week, I'm going to ask if I can take some test shots with each and check them on my computer before making my final decision.

Thank you.

Navy Moose

hiroProtagonist

NavyMoose wrote:

At the end of this week, there is going to be a show held by the local pro shop, Hunt's Photo Video. They have reps from all the biggies with lower than usual pricing.

Anyway, I'm giving lots of thought to adding a macro to my stable of lenses. The Nikon is great because it has VR, but the price is almost $760 at B&H and the Sigma is around $400. I'm using B&H as my guide for this exercise.

On another forum I heard from people who own each and are satisfied. The test reports from each seem good.

Does anyone here have hands on experience using both of these lenses who can tell me how they feel about them?

This week, I'm going to ask if I can take some test shots with each and check them on my computer before making my final decision.

Thank you.

Navy Moose

I was considering the same. Went with the Nikon, because of the VR, and well..., because its Nikon,

cyclonend

I love my Nikon 105. I use it a lot for my portrait shots.

Manfr3d

Since VR is not very useful for 1:1 macro work I would go for the Sigma
105mm. I had it in my hands a few days ago. Its a light, well build and
sharp little lens. Have you considered the Tamron 180mm or Sigma 150mm
Macro?

peterst6906

When I was looking to add a macro to my lens collection, I did a lot of research and testing of the different brands, including the Nikon 105 VR, Sigma 105, Tamron 90 (plus the shorter and longer focal lengths in the brands, but I was specifically looking for the 90-105 range).

Not only from all the reading I did, but also from the testing, I found that the macro lenses are good, no matter which manufacturers lens you pick.

It seems to be a class of lens where it's difficult to find a bad example.

Based on that, I went with the Sigma 105 and I use it for a range of shooting, including portraits. It's pin sharp and nice and fast.

I tend to use a tripod so VR wasn't really needed and I also use good light, both for macro work and portraits, so again, the VR wasn't needed, even when hand holding.

I liked the Sigma 105 over the Nikon primarily because the performance was on par without the additional expense, and I preferred the Sigma over the Tamron because the extra focal length gave me some additional stand-off distance to some flighty macro subjects (though this may be more in my head than it was is practical terms).

Regards,

Peter