Sigma EX Lenses

[pdechavez]

I have 2 EX lenses and think theyre really awesome but I just want to know how they compare to Nikkor lenses since i'm debating which macro lens to get. I know Sigmas are considered budget lenses but they really do perform well!

Sigma EX 150mm micro F2.8 (excellent reviews)

-or-

Nikkor Micro 105mm F2.8 VR (Nikon high end lenses)

All input is appreciated!

 

[compuwar]

Generally, fixed aperture Nikkors hold their value better and have better contrast. If you're looking for a macro in that range, you should also consider the Tamron 90mm SP Di.

 

[miloblithe]

Have you thought through what focal length really suits your needs? There's a lot of options ranging from 50mm to 200mm, Sigma alone making 50, 70, 105, 150, and 180mm options.

 

[Cliff3]

The reviews of the Sigma macros have been good. The thing to consider with macro lenses is the working distance. A 105 will give you about 12" while a 180/200 will be around 18". If you're planning on getting lifesize photographs of poisonous things that bite or sting, I'd probably opt for the greater working distance

 

[Phrasikleia]

That 105mm VR lens is the one Nikon lens that I wish Canon would match. It is the only prime lens from either brand that is under 200mm and has stabilization. Unless you intend to use the lens only on a tripod, I'd go for the Nikkor.

 

[Abstract]

^^^That's not true. Even if you're using it for non-macro purposes, the 105 mm is perfectly usable without macro. It's not like the 85 mm lenses have VR, and they're usable without a tripod. Their focal length doesn't differ by much, either.


The VR helps, but not for macro. I have the 105 mm VR, and it's good. However, I don't think it's optically better than the Sigma 150 mm. Some reviews will say it's marginally better, some will say it's marginally worse. Whatever. The point is that they're comparable.

If you need 150 mm, then get the Sigma. If not, then get the Nikon. That's how I decided.

 

[Cliff3]

That 105mm VR lens is the one Nikon lens that I wish Canon would match. It is the only prime lens from either brand that is under 200mm and has stabilization. Unless you intend to use the lens only on a tripod, I'd go for the Nikkor.

I would never handhold for a macro photo. That technique is not going to produce a sharp enough image to suit me.

 

[jons]

I have 2 EX lenses and think theyre really awesome but I just want to know how they compare to Nikkor lenses since i'm debating which macro lens to get. I know Sigmas are considered budget lenses but they really do perform well!

Sigma EX 150mm micro F2.8 (excellent reviews)

-or-

Nikkor Micro 105mm F2.8 VR (Nikon high end lenses)

All input is appreciated!

If you are considering buying new, the Nikkor will hold it's value better.

I owned a 50MM 2.8 Sigma years ago, and it was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. Working distance sucked tho.

 

[pdechavez]

Thank you all for your input! Truly considered...

I've just purchased the Nikkon 105mm VR. Awesome lens, too bad it doesnt have a tripod collar mount...sumthing i'd like it to have.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I would never handhold for a macro photo. That technique is not going to produce a sharp enough image to suit me.

So far I've done all of my macro photos handheld, and I have managed to get some sharp shots (albeit with very shallow DOF). But I'd really like stabilization on a prime of that length for other purposes.

Congrats on the purchase, pdechavez. I'm sure you'll enjoy that lens!

 

[OldCorpse]

Funny, before I saw this thread, I posted an answer to another post here, and I pimped the Sigma 28mm:

On a Nikon body (D300) I use the Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro. It's a great walk-around lens, and I really dig the macro feature. The lens is freaky sharp and really nice in low light (low light capability is important to me, may not be to you). I love to use in indoors at parties and the like - the focal length is good for that, in that you take in more of the subject and it gets more depth of field compared to a 50mm, the lens is very fast (f/1.8) so I can often shoot in low indoor light without flash. But it's also a great outdoor lens - the wideish focal length is nice for both architecture in the city and for landscapes. And it's an affordable $250-$290. The downside to this lens is that it is pretty big and heavy for a prime comparatively speaking (the 50 is much tinier), and the auto focus is noisy... but then again, it's solidly built and the big glass results in better IQ. As usual with Sigma, they make this in a Canon mount, though I've not read reviews of how this lens does on Canon bodies. On the Nikon, I love it. You may also look into the the 24mm version. Oh, one other thing - if you ever want to go FX, you'll still be able to use this lens, which is nice... after all, you may buy a disposable body, but lenses are to be collected!

 

[JFreak]

Sigma EX are generally great products, but you might get an occasional dud that front-focuses and you'll have to get your lens re-calibrated. But if your lens is good, it's probably the best bang for your buck.