p.1 #1 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
Hello
for my first post, I might ask something not really new, I know a topic about a similar quetion was posted couple of years go when the Sigma 150mm Macro was released.
My question today is to try to understand which lens is the best for Macro, I do not think 105 vs 150 will make a huge difference, but I was wondering about the VR on he nikkor lens vs. no stabilization on Sigma lens.
I agree in advance that Macro shooting might often required tripod, however it is not necessarily a "must have", so I would leikt to get feedback from users of both lenses. I know the price of both lenses is not exactly the same, but let say it is not the main factor in my choice.
Thanks in advance
p.1 #2 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
nikon is better lens, no discussion. 100 vs 150 gives you a bit distance to objects you will be shooting, what is good for macro, depending what you want to shoot.
VR helps a lot with macro shots because you are on smalles DOF and every move makes difference.
i would say go for nikon if you do not shoot poisonous snakes and spiders.
p.1 #3 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
Bjorn Rorslett - a well respected reviewer of Nikon equipment didn't think the VR was all that useful. In fact I think in his review he even sold the 105 vr and opted for a Voigtländer.
When choosing between the lenses that you mention I'd pick the lens based upon the working distance that you think will be useful for your type of shooting and forget about VR unless you also intend to use the 105mm for something like portraiture.
p.1 #4 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
fkhfineart wrote:
nikon is better lens, no discussion. 100 vs 150 gives you a bit distance to objects you will be shooting, what is good for macro, depending what you want to shoot.
VR helps a lot with macro shots because you are on smalles DOF and every move makes difference.
i would say go for nikon if you do not shoot poisonous snakes and spiders.
I think your post contains a lot of misinformation.
First it is well known that the Sigma 150 is an excellent lens. See the photozone reviews for example of how sharp this lens can be. I rented a Sigma 150 and the both the build and IQ were quite nice.
Second, it is also well known that the VR DOES NOT work well for macro shooting which Nikon even admits to. Read Bjorn's review for a more detailed description.
p.1 #5 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
If you want an all around lens get the Nikon VR. If you need the longer focal length get the Sigma.
Have you considered the previous Nikon 105 F2.8 AFD Micro?
p.1 #6 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
What macro work do you do? If macro work is your only concern then b/w the nikon and the sigma the question is largly about working distance. The sigma will give you a little more room to breath so will be a better critter lens. The nikon will be a better all round preformer. VR at macro distances (as is AF) is meaningless as you'll get far better keeper rate with manual focusing and moving your own body to focus. Both lenses are proven preformers optically. VR only becomes important if you want to multitask with general shooting as well. Personally (and this is purely my opinion so take it with a grain of salt!!) i would get the sigma b/c to me the fact that there is better working distance is important. Also to me the bokeh out of the sigma looks much better than from the nikon (perhaps b/c of the greater focal length).
p.1 #8 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
The sigma 105mm is even cheaper and is very sharp - although I don't like the build quality that much. Really, there is no bad choice when it comes to macros. This is one area that all the manufacturers do well in, which is good for us consumers!
p.1 #9 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
I'm still hoping for an SL-II version of the Voiglander 125/2.5 -- partly because it will be much cheaper than the current inflated resale prices, and partly for full metering.
p.1 #10 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
galenapass wrote:
The sigma 105mm is even cheaper and is very sharp - although I don't like the build quality that much. Really, there is no bad choice when it comes to macros. This is one area that all the manufacturers do well in, which is good for us consumers!
p.1 #11 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
First, the 150 will give you more working distance. This can be a blessing outside when chasing butterflies but can be bad when you're doing still life in your kitchen as it makes it harder to position yourself.
So, if you want the distance get the 150.
If you want a 100mm lens then, as said already, Nikon states the VR does NOT work at macro distances. In addition, if you are only after a macro lens (i.e. do not anticipate to use it much for other types of shooting), the 105VR is a bit of an overkill. You are paying for VR which doesn't work for macro and you're paying for AFS which you won't be using as most macro is done with manual focus. I think a Tamron 90/2.8 is a better macro lens at the 100mm range. It is cheaper, as sharp (if not better), has excellent bokeh and also has a really nice manual focusing ring. The 105VR is fatter and more awkard to hold than the Tamron (my personal opinion) and when focusing manually it has that AFS grittiness. The Tamron is sliky smooth.
If you want an overall lens for macro, portraits, short tele and everything else, then by all means get the 105VR. You get a macro lens, sharp and has VR for normal shooting.
p.1 #12 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
I have the 105mmVR. It is a great lens and when working more than 2-3 feet away from the subject the VR comes into it's own. This lens doesn't autofocus very well on subjects less than a metre away though so I usually go manual from there.
It has excellent contrast and sharpness and a bokeh that is truly sublime. If I had my time to purchase again I would probably have saved more money and gone for the older 105mm because I like the results better from a tripod. On the other hand though, I wouldn't have been able to take as many macro shots as I have. (I only just got myself a decent tripod!)
From all reports the Sigma and Tamron make excellent Macro lenses and I have seen many beautiful pictures from them. Notably the 90mm Tamron.
I am not regretting my purchase at all though. I just realize for what I wanted it for I could have saved a couple of hundred Aussie bucks.
p.1 #13 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
Thanks for your comments and reports, I guess it was not completely useless to ask this question, seeing the number of different opinions
Of course I know the quality of Sigma Nikon and Tamron regarding their respective Macro lens. Yes I would like to get a lens for portrait too, so 150mm is for me better than 105mm (being a bit more away from the model), but then one would like to get the VR for portrait... and Sigma does not.
yes, I read about the VR on the Nikon lens not working that well, by Thom and Ken Rockwell, so in that aspect VR might not be that much usefull, even for portrait... I might go for the sigma, and with the Sigma, saving dozen of Euros to reinvest in another lens or a better zoom.
I hope this topic will help next users to make a better choice.
p.1 #14 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
Hmmm... I wouldn't be quick to say the Nikon is a better lens when respected reviewers have these kinds of things to say about that Sigma...
"Verdict
The Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 APO EX macro DG D is one of the few third-party lenses that can play in the league up there with the big boyz. The performance figures are excellent and leave really nothing to be desired across all tested quality characteristics. The mechanical build quality is very good thanks to a metal body and a true IF (internal focusing) design with a constant physical length. The AF speed is about average in absolute terms but pretty good for a macro lens. Thanks to Sigma's HSM (Hypersonic-Motor> the AF operates virtually silent. The lens is compatible to Sigma's APO EX DG converter so there´s also an option for some extra reach or increased working distance if needed. The price tag of the lens is moderate at around 550-600 €/US$." ---> HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
- Photozone.de
Honestly, I'm not an experienced macro guy, but I'm throroughly impressed with the Sigma 150... it's one of my very sharpest lenses and I am a fan of the focal length for a lot of things. AF performance is the best of any macro I've used, especially when you restrict the AF range. I've even used it for sports work with great results...
p.1 #15 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
First of all, there is no such a thing as a bad macro lens. I have used a Sigma 105mm and I recently upgraded to the 105VR. I like the VR for portrait, close-ups and with a TC, you get more working distance and more magnification...
I never used the Sigma 150 but I have seen a lot of very positive reactions about that lens...
in other words, you can't really make a bad decision... the question is what is your favorite working distance...
p.1 #16 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
Well, I'll have to pipe up here. Quite frankly, although over the years I've owned MORE than my share of the Sigma line (mostly with Canon mount) I have to say here one thing. The 150mm f2.8 EX HSM IF is perhaps the ONLY Sigma lens I would consider OVER the Nikkor's. It is, as has been born out by many a reviewer and owner, a top performer and has a wonderful build. I even liked the tripod mount and HSM focus motor system on THAT particular lens. It serves as an excellent mid tele as well as head shot portrait lens. It is a virtual NO compromise lens is shear optical performance. Nearly immesurable CA, Distortion and is sharp from center to all corners. There is really nothing bad I can say about that lens. Sorry I no longer have one as it went with all my other gear last summer when I lost a job. Now I'm recovered that is the ONLY lens I have yet to replace. It just might happen...and for the price there is simply NO competition AFAIAC. As one reviewer once said, it can "run with the big boys" in performance....and it does.
p.1 #17 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
Traveler, glad to hear everything is good and another Sigma 150 is in your near future. Me too! I had one in my Canon days and I'll probably get another for Nikon in a year or two. The build is incredibly good and I was expecting a heavy lens based on reviews but this lens serves as a nice mid-tele for handheld shooting. I like the 105mm VR, but I miss the reach of 150mm. The 150mm works well with Sigma TC. A 150mm + TC is still cheaper than Nikon 200mm. On a "budget" and can't afford the Sigma 180mm nor Nikon 200mm, the 150mm is long distance macro worth every penny. I also prefer the Sigma lens collars. You can pop the lens off a tripod while leaving the collar attached to the plate attached to the tripod. You never know when something interesting might fly by and you won't have time to reposition your set-up. Never got around to using it for portraits, my guess is the 105mm VR might be better for that based on focal length and bokeh.........but maybe the Sigma will surprise in this respect as well.
I had a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Fantastic lens, pro-grade all the way, Sigma fills a niche when needed. People also really enjoy their 300-800 and 500mm f/4.5. Sigma has come a long way since I bought my first Sigma consumer zoom lenses from Best Buy back in 1999 to go along with my Minolta 500si
p.1 #19 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
The Sigma's the better macro. By a fairly clear margin. Short of getting a 125mm APO-Lanthar, the Sigma's the lens I'd get in the 100-150mm range for Macro (As the Makro-Planar 100/2 doesn't go to 1:1). The 105VR's a decent lens, but like its predecessors it's rather average in performance (None of the AF 105 Micro-Nikkors are anything special performance-wise, excellent build but optically no better than a Sigma 105 and arguably worse than the Tamron 90).
The Sigma 150 is a stunner for macro work. Possibly the best lens Sigma makes (Even better than their 180, which is a damned good lens as well). It's a fairly clear-cut choice when you consider the Sigma's also cheaper.
p.1 #20 · Macro for Nikon: nikkor 105VR vs. Sigma 150?
Gregg B. wrote:
Sigma 180mm macro (currently goes for around $800, just like the Nikon 105mm VR Macro)
is really an awesome lens.
Take a look at these pics: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/macro-trebbia_valley-02.htm
They're all taken with Sigma 180mm on Canon.
Wow.... that guy is really something. Have a look at his high-res galleries. And he's only 23! I think I go for early retirement......
