Anyone owned both and can commment?
I had owned the Nikon 105vr for a short time, sold it to fund a new D700 body. Now with winter coming along I wanted to spend some time at a local horticultorial center (Longwood Gardens) photographing flowers. Initally I was just going to buy another Nikon, but the Sigma is $200 less and this is not a lens I would use a great deal.....but I also do not want to save money on an inferior product.
So....can anyone that has owned both offer any feedback/comments/review?
Can only say I'm happy using the Sigma 105mm. From what I can gather the sigma was rated as being optically identical to the older nikon 105mm but think the newer VR version marginally shows an improvement over the old one. I suspect you'd be happy with the sigma.
Brian V.
I haven’t used the Nikon and my Sigma just arrived yesterday so I can give much input on likes or dislikes between the two.
If it helps, I did find the Sigma at Sigma4less for $360. I think that’s about half of what I priced the Nikon at and with many of reviews I read favoring the Sigma or placing them fairly equal it seemed like a no brainer.
Actually don't own either, but can speak of the Sigma 150: money well spent. As I've said before to questions of this nature, if I had it to do over, I'd buy the Sigma 105 and stick the savings somewhere else. You can't go wrong either way.
Ken, out of curiousity, why would you buy the 105 over the 150 if you had to do it over again.
I am looking into purchasing a dedicated Macro lens in the future and the 150 was tops on my list. Mainly for the working distance.
Any insight would be great.
Thanks
For me, the consideration is weight. The 150 is built like a tank and, consequently, quite a load on the front of an already weighty camera. Add extension to it and you've got a handful. The extra working distance is not that much and, in my estimation, not worth the added weight. That said, I'm still not unhappy with the quality of the images and probably won't switch. Hindsight, as we all know, is 20-20. Hope that helps.
Kenny, yes that helps. I figured weight would be an issue but I didn't think about the addition of tubes and how it handles. Interesting comment on the working distance. I thought it would be more of a factor. I am currently playing with a reversed 50mm and although it was cheap, there are a couple of disadvantages. Not to mention, all my playing in the macro world involves hand holding my camera. So a smaller lighter lens would probably make a difference too. I guess I will have to consider something in the 100mm range. I guess an added bonus is it also less expensive.
Sigma produces some world class Macro glass.... I have the 150mm and it is absolutely incredible. Really nice working distance for flowers and critters. I also own the Nikon 105mm (non-VR) which is stellare as well. I wouldn't hesitate buying a Sigma macro product if I was you. Good luck!
Hope that helps.