What macro lens Sigma 150mm or Nikkor 105mm

[Whittler]

Hi guys,
I am looking to have a go at macro and need help getting a lens for my D700,
I going to buy the lens from DWI and these are the 2 I am considering.

Sigma 150mm f2 8 apo macro ex dg os hsm
or
Nikkor af-s vr micro 105mm f2.8g if-ed

The Sigma is only $165 more and I don't mind paying the extra cost.

[arthurking83]

Sigma 150.

I have the Nikon.
(but I've also used the Sigma)

[ricktas]

Sigma 150mm. I find the extra reach really useful when lying in leech infected dark rainforest and its also good for keeping back a bit from bitey insects

[Whittler]

Thanks for the reply guys.
I have been reading the Macro forum and the general theory is to start out with the smaller macro lens like the 105mm, how much harder will it be for me to get the hang of things with the 150mm?
Also is the Nikon lens better quality?

[ameerat42]

Whittler, I'm wondering why you compared two rather different focal length lenses in the first place?
Σ also make a 105 macro.
Am.

[Cage]

Sigma 150mm.

Sharp as a tack, more reach and also a more than useful short telephoto.

[Whittler]

ameerat42 I was originally after the 105mm Nikkor as I didn't know what else was out there, but I saw that this 150mm sigma is only a little bit more and have been told these 2 are comparable. But is Sigma a reputable brand? and is the extra reach worth that $160 more? and what about the learning curve I have never don't macro before.

[ameerat42]

I would not be in a position to give advice on the reputability of ANY brand. Nor do I denigrate any.
There is too much discreteness to consider before trying to evaluate a brand as a whole. And I do not know much about Nikon lenses (or Canon).

So that leaves me with only this to say in reply: I THINK you would have nothing to worry about with Σ, as with Nikon, or Canon, or so...

My original point, though, was the difference in focal length of the two lenses you mentioned, viz: 105mm and 150mm.

Initially, I guess you would compare the specs and get a handle on what you can expect from their performance. To my knowledge,
(most) proper macro lenses are capable of 1:1 reproduction, some even more. So I can only imagine you are considering the 150mm in
terms of a useful bit of extra telephoto reach, and the ability to be able to get a bit further from your subject. (The downside to that being
you may not always want to.)

Anyway, so back to the Q: why the difference in FL?
Am.

[Cage]

I have one, this one. http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/624-sigma15028ff

Google is your friend. Google it and see what other reviewers think.

[Whittler]

Cage thanks for that link I will use it for future reviews, I usually view the dpreview forums and see what they have to say about gear.
ameerat42 I am comparing the 105 vs 150 because the 150 is only $165 more, I am unsure if paying the extra cost for a 3rd party lens is a good idea or not.

[ricktas]

Cage thanks for that link I will use it for future reviews, I usually view the dpreview forums and see what they have to say about gear.
ameerat42 I am comparing the 105 vs 150 because the 150 is only $165 more, I am unsure if paying the extra cost for a 3rd party lens is a good idea or not.

One of the issues with DPReview is that it tends to be full of gear-heads who talk about so much technical stuff, but mostly have not used the gear they talk about, and in some cases have been found to not even own any camera gear. They get bogged down in discussion about refraction, light gathering, sharpness etc when they have not even seen or held the gear they profess to know everything about.

[Whittler]

Thanks for the advice guys I have ordered the Sigma 150mm

[arthurking83]

I've got a few lenses I use for macro .. not really any harder with a longer focal length .. actually I've found my shorter focal length lenses(75, 50, and 24mm) I use for macro are usually harder.

.....
Also is the Nikon lens better quality?

Other way around .. the Sigma will usually give better images overall.

[Paddyob]

I bet you're not disappointed now with your Sigma. I know of a pro who produces beautiful corporate calendars etc and swears by his 150mm Sigma. Good luck!

[Bennymiata]

I don't have the Nikon lens, but I do own and use the Sigma 150 (latest version with OS), an I also have the Canon 60mm macro and 100L macro lenses.

For handheld use, the shorter focal lengths are a bit easier to use and to hold steady (which is very important with macros). The OS or VR or whatever it is called by various manufacturers is almost useless for real macro shots, but is very usefull when you have some distance between you and the subject.

The longer the lens, the harder it is to keep it steady enough for good, close-up macro shots. On a tripod, it doesn't really matter.

As far as IQ goes, the Sigma is superior to my Canons, but the Sigma is big and fairly heavy too.