I am looking at a used version of this lens and would like to know if anyone of you has any experience using it. I'm really not interested in the OS factor that the newer Sigma 180 Macro has as I do most of my Macro work on a tripod and the f3.5 vs f2.8 is not that critical for me. Any help out there. Should I go for this one at around $450 or would it be better to wait and save my money on the newer 2.8 model at $1600?
jeryh
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
I had exactly this same query; I ended up buying the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO HSM lens. I don't think you will be at all disappointed with the performance of this lens. It is perfectly adequate for macro work- I use it mainly handheld, but it should be superb on a tripod!
i want one! i have the older 150 which i love but would like to have the 180 too
Many Macro-photographers use speedlight illuimation. My thing is that the aperture is not that important. That being said I have a 2.8 100mm.
Gifted One wrote:
Very many Mac guys use flash. My thing is that the aperture is not that important. That being said I have a 2.8 100mm.
to me speedlight and diffuser are very important when shooting macro. I use flash for every shot usually at f/16.
I use a speedlight also when needed that's why the f2.8 isn't a necessity. Thanks for the feedback, now I have to find a good one. See lots of units for Canon not my for Nikon.
tinusbum wrote:
to me flash and diffuser are very important when shooting macro,i use flash for every shot usuall at f16
You were one of the ones I was thinking about. you do very good work. I was just talking to a friend earlier today and I plan on many outings with my 8 year old Grand daughter who is a bug person. She shall be my spotter.
Just found a used one rated E+ at Adorama and pulled the trigger.
WayneT wrote:
Just found a used one rated E+ at Adorama and pulled the trigger.
i think your going to like it,post some pics when you get it.
I had the older non OS f/2.8 and it was excellent. They do require a bit more patience than do the 100mm class of lenses but the results can be amazing, clearly the out of focus areas are much more pleasing with the longer lenses.
Another plus with the long lenses is that on a full set of tubes you have a remarkable working distance, depending on the magnification you are looking for the working distance can be measured in feet not inches...
My last comment since with macro work most people manually focus and shoot at f/8 or smaller the f/3.5 maximum aperture should be of little consequence.
Good point on Max aperture I rarely go below 5.6 especially on a long lens.
I have the Sigma 180mm f/3.5. I was fortunate enough to be managing a camera store when I bought it, so I had the opportunity to compare it to the Tamron 180 and the Canon 180. I chose the Sigma over the Tamron for image quality and the Canon for Value and nearly identical image quality.
Buckeye wrote:
I have the Sigma 180mm f/3.5. I was fortunate enough to be managing a camera store when I bought it, so I had the opportunity to compare it to the Tamron 180 and the Canon 180. I chose the Sigma over the Tamron for image quality and the Canon for Value and nearly identical image quality.
That's really good to know. As others have stated on the forum it's better to hear from people who have actually used a product in real life situations to get an accurate assessment.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.