User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  11
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Macro lens opinion & some pics

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2015
    Location
    Wellard
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Macro lens opinion & some pics

    I'm still very new to photography

    My Mum and her side of the family all would like to put some $ into a new lens for my bday in October! I'm thinking a macro would be what i would like next.
    I have Nikon 5200 and currently looking at the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro lens.
    Does anyone have this lens or could anyone please share their thoughts on it or what might suit better? Something decent, value for the $ (prefer to stay under/around $1,000 mark-ish)

    Also these are my pics so far **request for CC on pics removed**
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/131071205@N07/
    Last edited by ameerat42; 06-07-2015 at 9:21pm.
    D5200, 18-55mm kit lens & 55-300mm.... For now

  2. #2
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,817
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    G'day Sharnee.
    Why do you want that macro? Would a longer lens help you get into birds more?

    I have no idea about the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro. If you don't get to many replies about that lens post again in Gear Talk ....... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...php?120-Lenses. While it's been a bit quiet there some will help.
    "Enjoy what you can do rather than being frustrated at what you can't." bobt
    Canon 80D, 60D, Canon 28-105, Sigma 150-600S, a speedlite, a tripod, a monopod, a remote release and a padded bag to carry things in.

  3. #3
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,796
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    MissN.
    I have moved your thread to the appropriate section. The "New to Photography" forum is for members with < 90 days membership to post pics
    for CC.

    I have also edited your thread title to remove the request for CC, as you posted a link to a whole album of pictures. We cannot possibly give
    CC (ie, be constructive) on such a large amount of material.

    Now, I will just say that although I do not have that particular lens, I have heard lots of good reports from people who do have it. I just missed
    out (unfortunately) on getting one a couple of years ago. It is capable of 1:1 reproduction, and is useful (as I've heard) as a portrait lens and
    short telephoto. Oh, and regarding macro work, it allows for some useful distance between front of lens and subject. Some shorter focal length lenses
    that still do 1:1 tend to require the lens to be much closer to the subject. This can cause problems with lighting.

    You might like to let us know what sort of macro work you are interested in.
    Ta.
    Am.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  4. #4
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,641
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I have the sigma 150mm macro, I used to have the tamron 90mm. The 150 gives you that extra length that you can stay away from bitey bugs etc that bit more. I use it for all my macro work, fungi, etc and I have used it as a pet portrait lens. Great for taking photos of people's dogs in the park etc.

    I think the 105mm has a good reputation, but do not know anyone with one, so cannot comment on that lens specifically. But I would keep in mind the 150mm version, before you make your final choice.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    12 Feb 2015
    Location
    Wellard
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks guys!

    I love taking pics of birds but also love macro photography.. Ideally id like a zoom and a macro
    Was thinking ill save for the zoom myself and Mum & Family can do the macro for me hehe

    I have heard the 105mm is good by a few people but i just wanted to get some more opinions as i am still very new and dont know much still.
    Will have to do some review searching

  6. #6
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,796
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, serious macro (which I don't do) is usually considered to be 1:1 or higher reproduction.
    Some lenses "offer macro" that can get down to about 1:2, which means image size is HALF subject size.
    Many telephotos and zoom lenses do this, though some only get to about 1:3. Some more specialised macro
    lenses do 2:1, ie, image size is TWICE subject size.

    Sounds to me you are after TWO different lenses, one each for macro and for birds. With some skill and practice,
    and lens quality, f=400mm would suffice for a lot of bird photography. (This is from what I've seen here and elsewhere.)
    I have a 50-500 that I use for my (poor) birding. This lens also gets down to 1:3 for "macro". It sort of "does" me, but
    I would go and get a specialised macro lens if I wanted to get into macro. As it stands, this lens is good enough for my
    odd close-up jobs.

    In fact, depending on how far you want to go, be prepared to spend a bit on each of these lenses to (hope to) get
    good image quality.

    Others here who are more into each of these fields can advise further. Meantime, do some review reading, and, instead
    of just believing what you read, run it past here occasionally.

    Am.

  7. #7
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,350
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I totally agree with Rick's comments about the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. I also have one, and can't speak highly enough about it. Sharp as a tack !

    As Rick said the length gives you the ability to get further away from the nasties.

    Also consider that on your D5200 the focal length will be 225mm and if you add a 1.4 Teleconverter you will have a focal length of 315mm giving you a very sharp telephoto lens.

    Check here for a review .... http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...w--test-report

    and here for a price .... http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/...mm+f2.8&spos=3

    Ryda are an Australian company offering full manufacturer's warranty and are cheaper than the grey marketeers. I've bought quite a bit of gear from them and can recommend them.

    I reckon you should have an early birthday this year.
    Cheers
    Kev

    D600 : D7200 and too much stuff to list

  8. #8
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MissNarniee View Post
    ....

    I have heard the 105mm is good by a few people but i just wanted to get some more opinions as i am still very new and dont know much still.
    Will have to do some review searching
    Been there done that!
    Many years back, when I started looking for a good all round macro lens, it came down to two lenses.
    The Nikon 105/2.8 VR and the Sigma 105/2.8
    Back then, the Sigma didn't have OS(optical stabilisation), but the Nikon had VR.
    Only for that reason did I go with the Nikon. Had the Sigma had OS back then, I'd have gone for that lens instead.
    The Sigma is a better lens in all round IQ properties.
    Also, back then the 150/2.8 Sigma didn't exist, and a few years after that I got a chance to play with an early version of that lens(without OS).

    Once again, the Sigma 150/2.8 was a nicer lens overall than the Nikon. If the Nikon lens didn't have VR I'd have gone with the Sigmas.

    Now that they all have optical stabilisation, the Sigma lenses are definitely the better lenses to go for.

    As your family is doing the buying, and you don't want to put them under too much financial pressure .. the Sigma 105/2.8OS is ideal. Not too expensive and very high IQ(plus stabilisation when you need it)
    If they don't mind the extra couple of hundred $s .. then the Sigma 150/2.8OS will be the better lens, but only that it will give you more distance to the subject to work with.
    On the D5200, the 105mm will work better as a portrait lens(in that you don't have to stand as far back from your portrait subjects)
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    12 Feb 2015
    Location
    Wellard
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh thank you for that guys!! Definitely helped
    I'll either get that 105mm or maybe ill get them to give me the money towards a lens and i could save some money and go for the 150mm.. Hmm ill see what they say
    Last edited by MissNarniee; 07-07-2015 at 4:55pm.

  10. #10
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,350
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I paid $630.00 for mine second hand and it included the 1.4 T/C. It was in immaculate condition.

  11. #11
    Member James42's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Sep 2012
    Location
    **Suburb/Town Required**
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Sharnee,
    I have the Sigma 105mm lens and it has performed well. I think it represents good value when compared to the alternatives.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Loves The Wildlife. Mary Anne's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane Southside.
    Posts
    36,073
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have four Macro Lenses they are all 1.1 Macro and I have been happy with them all over the years..

    Up nice and close there is the 60mm *I don't recommend that* unless you are shooting with a m4/3 camera...

    A lens between 90mm-105mm is perfect and the best size for shooting macro in my opinion with a DSLR.

    Worried about getting stung or bitten try the 150mm, though nowhere near long enough for Birding

    Oh and BTW I have never heard of a bad macro lens yet, and Best of Luck with whatever lens you choose

    I shoot with Canon And Olympus Cameras



  13. #13
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mary Anne View Post
    ....

    Oh and BTW I have never heard of a bad macro lens yet .....
    That's what happens when you live in the rarefied atmosphere of Canon L lenses!

    Nikon's 105VR is close to that.
    It can produce good images in some situations, but massive CA problems lets it down.
    This is where the Sigma lenses(and Tamron 90 that I've also tried) looked appealing by comparion.
    Not that they were that much sharper ... Sigma 150 is by a smidge, and the Tammy 90(old model) was about on par.
    But in most situations the Nikon 105 shows large amounts of CA(mainly in the green range), whereas none of the other lenses do!

    You can 'easily' get rid of CA in PP, with a click of a button, of course, but it's easier to not have to deal with it in the first place(especially at the levels that the Nikon lens creates it!)

  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    12 Feb 2015
    Location
    Wellard
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Arthur but what does "CA" stand for? hahahh newbie here

  15. #15
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,796
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MissNarniee View Post
    Thanks Arthur but what does "CA" stand for? hahahh newbie here
    ( I'm not Arthur, but) CA stands for Chromatic Aberration. It is an "aberration" in the refractive ability of a lens (not a flaw as such).
    It shows up as red/green or magenta/cyan fringes around high-contrast parts of an image. Have a look at this article.
    Am.

  16. #16
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    12 Feb 2015
    Location
    Wellard
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oooohhhh yep ive noticed that before!
    Thankies Am.

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Addict Lplates's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2011
    Location
    Gladstone
    Posts
    10,309
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have the Sigma 105 macro and am very pleased with it. I use it on a crop sensor Nikon D7100 and have used it successfully for sports shots as well as macro.
    Glenda


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •