I read the council given on choosing a macro lens in todays post, which included good reviews for the sigma 150. I have been shooting with a sigma 105mm. I am considering the Nikon 200mm. Does anyone have a comparison between the sigma 150 and the Nikon 200?
I would hate to spend the extra money if the results from the sigma 150 are close in quality.
Thanks
I owned a Nikon 105mm macro VR lens a few years ago (lost to theft from my car), and believe it to be a fine lens although the $1k is more than the amature would like to spend. The 200mm I'm not fimiliar with, though it would give greater working distance from the subject and maybe better blurred background for flora/fauna subjects. Would recommend comparing both lenses for best desired results.
Good Luck, Gene C.
Thanks Gene
I'm beginning to enjoy more macro shooting and wanted to get one more lens that I could live with for a while.
Have a great weekend
jsimp3 wrote:
Thanks Gene
I'm beginning to enjoy more macro shooting and wanted to get one more lens that I could live with for a while.
Have a great weekend
I use the Nikon 200mm MACRO great lens
MarkH
Loc: Cape Coral, FL
docrob wrote:
jsimp3 wrote:
Thanks Gene
I'm beginning to enjoy more macro shooting and wanted to get one more lens that I could live with for a while.
Have a great weekend
I use the Nikon 200mm MACRO great lens
I've heard this lens described as the "holy grail" for bug photographers.
It seems quite large and heavy. Can you comment on your satisfaction level and is a tripod a necessity with this lens?
MarkH wrote:
I've heard this lens described as the "holy grail" for bug photographers. It seems quite large and heavy. Can you comment on your satisfaction level and is a tripod a necessity with this lens?
I have never used the Nikkor 200 macro, but I do not doubt its excellent reputation. I own the Nikkor 105G, which, like its 105 predecessors before, is considered the standard of the industry.
It is my experience that more entomological macro-photographers use a Nikkor 105 than any other single lens. For general macro work, the field is more evenly distributed among Canon, Nikkor, Tamron, Olympus, Tokina, etc.
MarkH
Loc: Cape Coral, FL
Nikonian72 wrote:
MarkH wrote:
I've heard this lens described as the "holy grail" for bug photographers. It seems quite large and heavy. Can you comment on your satisfaction level and is a tripod a necessity with this lens?
I have never used the Nikkor 200 macro, but I do not doubt its excellent reputation. I own the Nikkor 105G, which, like its 105 predecessors before, is considered the standard of the industry.
It is my experience that more entomological macro-photographers use a Nikkor 105 than any other single lens. For general macro work, the field is more evenly distributed among Canon, Nikkor, Tamron, Olympus, Tokina, etc.
quote=MarkH I've heard this lens described as the... (
show quote)
I can see why the 105 would be used more. It is lighter, cheaper, optically excellent and just more practical to use.
The 200 seems like it would be less mobile and a bit cumbersome to use in the field.
The 105 is also great for portraits.
MarkH wrote:
docrob wrote:
jsimp3 wrote:
Thanks Gene
I'm beginning to enjoy more macro shooting and wanted to get one more lens that I could live with for a while.
Have a great weekend
I use the Nikon 200mm MACRO great lens
I've heard this lens described as the "holy grail" for bug photographers.
It seems quite large and heavy. Can you comment on your satisfaction level and is a tripod a necessity with this lens?
The nikon 200 mm macro does have a tripod collar. The lens is heavy but could be used hand held if really desperate. The quality is superb.
Thanks for all the input. I generally shoot my macro on a tripod, I'm just not steady enough for handheld with any of the lenses. It seems that I can't go wrong with image quality. I now need to justify spending the money.
Thanks to all
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.