Well I don't own that 150mm and haven't used it but I DO own their 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens. If the performance of the 50mm is any indication of what the 150mm can output, it's going to be a gorgeous lens.
I have used f32 on my 180 maybe one or twice, I don't think it's a major factr if your macro lens doesn't have it. When you approach 1:1 and beyond, stopping down pass f22 has little effect on the DoF anyway. Paralleling your subject matter with the film/sensor plane has the most pronounced effect.
Buy the 150. Sigma has made a really good name for themselves with their 180 macro, I doubt they will want to ruin that image The 180 is build like a tank, definitely no less than L lens quality (no weather sealing though).
Assuming that the lens were to be used primarily for macro, what advantages would this lens have over the existing 180mm f3.5? I already own the Canon 135 f2 so I wouldn't need a 150 f2.8 for general telephoto.
Harold St wrote:
Assuming that the lens were to be used primarily for macro, what advantages would this lens have over the existing 180mm f3.5? I already own the Canon 135 f2 so I wouldn't need a 150 f2.8 for general telephoto.
The 150 is smaller, lighter and faster (f/2.8 is always nice to have whether its a macro lens or not). I don't say Sigma 180 users must trade their lenses for this new one, but it certainly has some nice things to make it interesting.
Oct 23, 2004 at 09:31 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Moody wrote:
1/200 sec.
So it is possible to use f/25 and not use a tripod at 180mm?
Last question: which flash did you use?
It was a Canon Speedlite 550EX. Just on top of the camera and nothing special.
I use my 180 macro handheld most of the time. But you can of course improve the image quality by using a tripod.
Oct 24, 2004 at 11:05 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
dejavu wrote:
I have used f32 on my 180 maybe one or twice, I don't think it's a major factr if your macro lens doesn't have it. When you approach 1:1 and beyond, stopping down pass f22 has little effect on the DoF anyway. Paralleling your subject matter with the film/sensor plane has the most pronounced effect.
Buy the 150. Sigma has made a really good name for themselves with their 180 macro, I doubt they will want to ruin that image The 180 is build like a tank, definitely no less than L lens quality (no weather sealing though).
Louis,
I agree with everything you say. But I think it's a little bit strange that the lens has f/22 as the smallest aperture. Especially as the other 2 new sigma macro lenses (50 & 105 replacements) go all the way to f/45
As to Sigma's 180, for those who are considering this lense.
First, it needs to come with a warning as to cutting your eye when you look through this lense as it's an incredibly sharp prime lense.
Also, on a 1.6x sensor crop, you have a "macro" lense that's almost a 300mm lense and does f/3.5. That's some lense. When I use the lense, I'm constantly saying to myself; "Too much lense." "It's too much lense. The 1.6x sensor crop almost makes this lense too much to reasonably use. Maybe that's why Sigma is coming out with the 150mm and with the shorter FL, they can more easily kick the aperature up an additional half stop.
The AF on the lense, my copy, is almost useless as it hunts and hunts, I die, I'm resurrected and the stupid lense is still hunting. Quit, give up, use manual focus and be done with it.
And finally, personally, I need to tripod mount this baby as the DOF, even when stopped down, is so short that I have trouble handholding this puppy and it's not because I'm weak
To anybody that's on the sidelines on this puppy and is wondering whether or not to pull the trigger, don't worry a second longer, buy the stupid thing be done with it and have a good time.
Everything, for the most part, about the Sigma 180 which makes it good, also makes it bad; other then the very, very, very slow AF.
It's big and heavy. For some this is a stabilizing plus, too others, it's a negative.
It's sharper then heck and doubles for an excellent, flat field prime. But it's so sharp that it sucks for a portrait lense unless you want to capture the detail in every single pour of a person's face.
It's a beautiful well built lense and for the most part that this is a good thing but it's so beautiful that it'll possibly attract the wrong kind of attention as in; "No you can't touch or steal my lense."
It's a big bad beautiful lense that at times, is guilty of overkill because it's such a fine lense.
Hope the above helps in the decision making process.
I'm sure I won't buy the Sigma 180, because it's too big. Only men are allowed to say that
So I'm leaning towards the 150, but I want to be sure that it is as sharp as the 180. In that case it would be a very very nice lens....
