p.2 #1 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
theSuede wrote:
Neither do much good unless you have time to use LV magnification to focus when shooting at large apertures, or if you can accept losing at least 2/3 or 3/4 out of your shots (if you have a good manual focusing day). They're only critically sharp in the plane of best focus, and if that isn't exactly where you want it to be - all the optical excellence is wasted.
completely off topic, but those are really high oof percentages. are you talking about shooting macro? even shooting kids running around i'd be shocked to have less 2/3 in focus with an slr with a decent screen and a 100-200mm ~f/2.8 lens.
p.2 #2 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
wiseguy010 wrote:
I will wait and see what Zeiss or Nikon has to offer in this respect in near future. Zeiss is working on longer teles and another macro and I suppose Nikon will come sooner or later with a replacement of their 200 micro.
I am not prepared to spend a huge amount of money on a lens (Sigma) that probably will depreciate substantially in a short period of time and where having a sample with proper AF is more or less a lottery. Even with their supposed better recent QC there are many people complaining about this with their recent lenses.
Optically the Sigma seems quite/very good, but the Leica 180/2.8 APO is sharper on infinity according to a test at Diglloyd. For nearby-pictures the Sigma appears to be a little sharper, but it has some focus shift which is quite annoying for precise macro work....Show more →
In every thread in forum you just keep on with your trash talk against every Sigma lens
p.2 #3 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
theSuede wrote:
Let's do that Leica comparison "the other way around", shall we?
The Sigma is SHARPER at anything closer than infinity, has AF, has AE, has stabilization, has a factory guarantee, is better APO corrected for OOF LoCA, and it's cheaper - than the Leica 180 APO-Elmarit.
p.2 #4 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
sebboh wrote:
completely off topic, but those are really high oof percentages. are you talking about shooting macro? even shooting kids running around i'd be shocked to have less 2/3 in focus with an slr with a decent screen and a 100-200mm ~f/2.8 lens.
Well its a macro... I know that comparing the 200mm FD macro on the nex vs the 180mm 2.8 Contax on the nex (both at f4-5.6) its much easier to get shots outside of the macro sweet spot with a non-macro focusing helicoid. So that could account for some of the loss in keepers. I haven't tried it recently with an optical viewfinder but my limited experience with the A900 +50 1.4, was that my success rate at wide apertures with MF was in that range.
I agree that for many types of photography you don't NEED dead on focus, but in those cases you are giving away lens performance for no real reason. Why spend more if you can't use it?
I'm glad to read about this lens though, I'll have to keep an eye out and see if I can test fire one, because it seems very nice (180) and its a focal length I love.
p.2 #5 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
R3medy wrote:
If You want a lens that lasts a lifetime why do You even bother with depreciation (which on a side note is completely not true in terms of Sigma macro lenses)
That I want a lens that can last a lifetime, doesn't necessarily mean that I will have it a lifetime. It more or less insures me that I can use it for as long as I want and when I want to sell it, I can still get a good price for it. At least I have the choice what I want to do with it. All those new lenses with lots of electronics will be worthless after 10 years and many lenses will not function anymore (and can't be repaired).
Besides that, the lenses that I aim at also have more than excellent optics. These might not be as sharp as the Sigma, but there are other more important aspects in a lens than tiny differences in sharpness that only can be seen under a microscope.
Where I live you can get about 60% of the new-price for a used Sigma 150 when it is in mint condition. That is not too bad. As the Sigma 180 is much more expensive I expect you will get a (much) lower percentage than 60% in future. But time will tell.
p.2 #6 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
I just bought the sigma 150 macro os yesterday and should be here next week. I too was debating between the 150 and 180mm. I chose the 150 since i already have the 70-200mm range covered. The 150 seemed fine for my purposes and im goad i found this thread. I wish there were more samples from the 180 sigma but they seem hard to come by right now. Ill be updating when i get my lens and post some photos.
p.2 #7 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
My Sigma 180 OS will be here in a few days. I currently have the Sigma 150 OS and the Leica 100 APO. I figure it will be a very interesting test. Gotta admit that I thoguht I'd never wish for or find anything better than the Sigma 150 OS. In the past I have had (in the macro world): Leica 60, Canon 100, Canon 100 IS, Canon 180, Sigma 150, Sigma 180, Tamron 180, Tamron 90, Rokunar 90 and probably a few that do not come to mind right now.
p.2 #8 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
SoulNibbler wrote:
Well its a macro... I know that comparing the 200mm FD macro on the nex vs the 180mm 2.8 Contax on the nex (both at f4-5.6) its much easier to get shots outside of the macro sweet spot with a non-macro focusing helicoid. So that could account for some of the loss in keepers. I haven't tried it recently with an optical viewfinder but my limited experience with the A900 +50 1.4, was that my success rate at wide apertures with MF was in that range.
I agree that for many types of photography you don't NEED dead on focus, but in those cases you are giving away lens performance for no real reason. Why spend more if you can't use it?
I'm glad to read about this lens though, I'll have to keep an eye out and see if I can test fire one, because it seems very nice (180) and its a focal length I love. ...Show more →
i figured he was talking about the manual focus non macro lenses. agreed manual focusing macros at long distances is often a pain, even more so if they are AF lenses. in my experience focusing a 180/2.8 wide open is a lot easier than a 50/1.4 wide open because the longer lens is much better corrected at full aperture giving much better focus pop in the viewfinder. nevertheless, on film my manual focus at large apertures has always been at least 90% for people, though i'm sure it would be lower on digital where i don't have to pay for every exposure. my experience with AF, which i admit is a generation behind the state of the art, has always been that it is good for speed but not precision – it can get you almost perfect focus very quickly but it cannot get you consistantly perfect focus anywhere near as well as manual focus. this means that for me sharpness in a lens is more important for manual focus than for AF since it will more often be wasted with AF.
so how are the sigma's for manual focus? i assume much better at macro distances than long.
p.2 #9 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
Both the 150 and the 180 focus ring angles are very "short" in the longer part of distance range. So no, I wouldn't recommend trying to MF them at distance.
My only references are the 150/2.8A Mamiya MF lens here, and that's a LOT easier. I haven't touched an MF tele lens longer than 150mm for actually trying to achieve something worthwhile under pressure since the 200F2.0AIS (which was impossible to handhold AND focus at the same time... )
p.2 #10 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
gasrocks wrote:
My Sigma 180 OS will be here in a few days. I currently have the Sigma 150 OS and the Leica 100 APO. I figure it will be a very interesting test. Gotta admit that I thoguht I'd never wish for or find anything better than the Sigma 150 OS. In the past I have had (in the macro world): Leica 60, Canon 100, Canon 100 IS, Canon 180, Sigma 150, Sigma 180, Tamron 180, Tamron 90, Rokunar 90 and probably a few that do not come to mind right now.
Please let us know how the sigma 180mm is....im very curious
p.2 #12 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
theSuede wrote:
Both the 150 and the 180 focus ring angles are very "short" in the longer part of distance range. So no, I wouldn't recommend trying to MF them at distance.
My only references are the 150/2.8A Mamiya MF lens here, and that's a LOT easier. I haven't touched an MF tele lens longer than 150mm for actually trying to achieve something worthwhile under pressure since the 200F2.0AIS (which was impossible to handhold AND focus at the same time... )
i was afraid of that. it's a shame, i've been contemplating getting the 150mm till the unlikely event i find a reasonably priced cv 125/2.5.
p.2 #14 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
Jeez! Thanks to everyone for all of the information, responses, etc. I did not expect such a response! Also, was not aware the 180/2.8 OS was THAT LARGE! I knew filter size was enormous @86mm, but expected the physical size of lens to be closer to, say, the Nikon 180/2.8 AF-D. Will probably keep the 105VR or opt to get the Sigma 150 OS if need be, at a later date.
p.2 #15 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
lsutigerfan wrote:
Jeez! Thanks to everyone for all of the information, responses, etc. I did not expect such a response! Also, was not aware the 180/2.8 OS was THAT LARGE! I knew filter size was enormous @86mm, but expected the physical size of lens to be closer to, say, the Nikon 180/2.8 AF-D. Will probably keep the 105VR or opt to get the Sigma 150 OS if need be, at a later date.
You might want to keep your eye open for a good, used Tamron 180mm Di, wonderful image qualities for $500-$600, amazing value. It just doesn't have the new whiz-bang features like fast/silent focusing or OS.
I have it and now the Sigma 150mm OS but will keep the Tamron, it's a little lighter and is still fun to use, especially for those extra-sensitive critters.
p.2 #16 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
neilvan wrote:
You might want to keep your eye open for a good, used Tamron 180mm Di, wonderful image qualities for $500-$600, amazing value. It just doesn't have the new whiz-bang features like fast/silent focusing or OS.
I have it and now the Sigma 150mm OS but will keep the Tamron, it's a little lighter and is still fun to use, especially for those extra-sensitive critters.
+1 ...and the Tamron has a nice collar and the whole hood assembly rotates if you choose to use a CP. The only thing I miss is no image stabilization - so it really needs the tripod.
Dave
p.2 #18 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
carstenw wrote:
How is the Tamron for CA? Is it better overall than buying an older Sigma 150mm without OS?
I check my Tamron pics and could not find any CA examples. But then again I don't see CA as an issue for my macro work. However, just out of curiosity I shot a test pattern in afternoon sunlight and it does have your typical Bokeh Fringing & LoCA. At f/8 its greatly diminished.
For some reason I think the Tamron macro's get an unwarranted passing by - when they are really a great macro lens. I do wish it had image stabilization for shooting moving insects. I can't compare to Sigma because I've never had one but compared to my Mamiya 120 macro - there is very little difference (other than +60mm and autofocus). I have some examples at http://www.pbase.com/dbehrens/tamron180 .
p.2 #19 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
I have a bit of difficulty to understand the role of stabilization in a macro shot. For any on-the-fly insect shot (or most insect macros), I think a macro flash is a necessity. Then it would boil down to the flash duration. In this case, stabilization might actually hurt the IQ (induced movement).
p.2 #20 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
I'm not sure that image stabilization is that useful for macro shots, but it's useful to me in a macro lens because I don't like to carry redundant lenses. If I'm heading out and I think I might shoot macro, I'll carry the Sigma 150, but otherwise I'll take the 70-200. I don't like having to carry both a zoom and a macro. The 150 has OS and is a long enough focal length that I'm comfortable taking it in instead of the 70-200.
