I have owned the Sigma 150mm in the past, and I really like it for macro. It is a phenomenal lens for the money. I currently only have a 105mm for macro, and was wanting to add a longer lens to my lineup for some outings I have coming up this Spring and Summer. I have started to reconsider the Nikkor 200mm f/4 over the Sigma.
Does anyone have any input here? Any users who have used both? Samples from the 200mm f/4, etc?
I might be in the minority here. But I was not impressed with the sigma 150mm. Haven't used the nikon 200mm but the sigma was not nearly as sharp as the nikon 105VR or 70-200VR. It was also not nearly as accurate to focus.
I had a 150 back when I shot Canon and I have one (non OS )for my nikon now. I love it. Couldn't be sharper. This time I also bought a Sigme 1.4 TC. Now I have the reach of the 200 Nikon and at a whole lot less money.(used of course). Never had a Nikon 200, but I don't see how it could be much, if any, better.
eSchwab wrote:
I might be in the minority here. But I was not impressed with the sigma 150mm. Haven't used the nikon 200mm but the sigma was not nearly as sharp as the nikon 105VR or 70-200VR. It was also not nearly as accurate to focus.
I think that does put you in the minority -- I've found the Sigma to be better than either, and quite a big step better than the zoom. Not sure what the problem was, but I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. Lemon, maybe?
re. the 150 vs. 200: both are excellent. The lighter, more compact Sigma is more versatile for me, and it's as good at infinity as close up. If the 200 is the focal length you really want, and if you see yourself using this more strictly for macro, it may be the better choice. Otherwise, I think the versatility of the Sigma trumps it.
The 200, though, might be a better complement to the 105VR. The Sigma splits the difference, and for me it eliminates the need for either -- but that might not be the case for you.
I will say on the Sigma 150, the NON-OS version is [to me] sharper and a better lens than the revised one with OS. Not sure what they did but something changed and not in a good way. My 150 non-OS bests the Nikon 105VR and Tamron 90.
Now 150 vs 200? The Nikon 200 f/4 is really one of the sharpest options Nikon has and is hands down their best macro lens IMHO. Downside is, it's also the most expensive. If you need the reach and have the cash, it's a really a great way to go.
If you don't shoot enough macro to support an expensive lens like that, the Sigma 150 non-OS is a great option for about $500 used. I bought mine from a fellow FM'er and now my Tamron 90 collects dust. The only other macro lens I use at this time is the Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 ZF2 but it is only 1:2 magnification which puts it out of range of the options listed above. It's also expensive.
The 200 is an amazing lens. Razor sharp, with terrific subject isolation, great manual focus feel and a decent tripod mount. I've never used the Sigma, but those who own it seem to rate it highly.
I used to have Sigma 150 f2.8 and Canon 100mm when I shot Canon. When I switched to Nikon I bought Nikon 105 VR and Tamron 180 f3.5. The copy of Tamron I got is a little sharper than the Sigma I used to have. However, the reason I bought it is because I felt the Tamron resulted in a more beautiful background blur.
In general, I'd say most (if not all) macro lenses are all very sharp and I don't believe a particular brand/model will be sharper than another brand/model. Instead, most the difference may probably be caused by sample variations. So I'd suggest you also consider other factors like background blurry, minimum focus distance, weight,...
I have also saw some very beautiful images from Nikon 200mm. It may be the one behind the lens is far more important than the lens itself.
Eric
Apr 03, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
egd5 wrote:
I had a 150 back when I shot Canon and I have one (non OS )for my nikon now. I love it. Couldn't be sharper. This time I also bought a Sigme 1.4 TC. Now I have the reach of the 200 Nikon and at a whole lot less money.(used of course). Never had a Nikon 200, but I don't see how it could be much, if any, better.
I've thought about going the Siggy 150 + 1.4 TC route as a flexable macro kit with medium and long reach, but it ends up being quite expensive that way. The Tamron 180 is less expensive, less weight and elss bulk ... but not quite as versitile.
But, for living creatures I want the reach and for non-lving subjects, any decent lens with tubes works just fine. I'm thinking the Tamron will be the way I go ... I do wish it had the AFS style AF as I like to use AF to corse focus and then fine tune in manual.
I have had both and the 150mm sigma is my keeper. i sold the nikon 200 very good but just love the sigma. I also have the 70-180 nikon macro zoom very nice and a a nikon 60 mm 2.8. I had a nikon 105 I sold also. sigma is the bomb for me and the 60mm is a great small travel lens.
I should add that my 150/2.8 is a non-OS version. I've heard mixed things about the OS version -- some people seem to like it as much as the old one, and some report that it's not as good (and i don't think anyone has ever said the new one's better). I've been tempted by the OS, but not sure I want to spend that much -- and it sounds like I should, at minimum, keep the one I've got until I'm absolutely sure the OS version can compete with the original.
A friend has the 200mm Nikkor and I have the non-OS 150mm Sigma. He wanted to buy my lens after trying it. I used his lens for a while and there is no way I would buy it over the Sigma.
The last time I checked, the paint job on a lens had zero impact on the image quality produced. Has that changed? Yeah, didn't think so....
MagicNikon wrote:
Yes, good point. Do you have any experience with it?
Yup. It's super-sharp, fairly lightweight and compact too. AF is slow, but for true macro use, I find AF a bit superfluous in all honesty. I've used mine with a 1.4x TC + Canon 500D close up filter on a D7000 and the magnification and image quality are astounding. Can't post any pics at the moment as my photo PC is 400 miles away.
In my experience, there really aren't any bad macro lenses out there - let's face it, making a good quality fixed focal length lens that focuses close isn't exactly an insurmountable challenge. It comes down to focal length ( personally, I prefer longer as you get 1:1 from a better working distance) and cost. The Tammy 180mm f/3.5 is great optically and barganacious too
