Nikon vs Sigma: I am currently using a Nikon 500D (love it). My question has several parts and I will try to be as concise as possible. Have been using a Nikon 85mm 1:3.5 for Macro...

Larry J

I am currently using a Nikon 500D (love it). My question has several parts and I will try to be as concise as possible. Have been using a Nikon 85mm 1:3.5 for Macro shots. I am considering going to either a Nikon
105mm 2.8 or a Sigma 105mm 2.8.
Questions are: 1. Will I gain very much going from 85 to 105 (not as easy to bend over any more..LOL)
2. Buying the Nikon vs Sigma
Inputs will be greatly appreciated

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

You're not going to gain very much, if you really want a large working distance you may consider the Sigma 180 or the Nikon 200, but you have to realize that these are big, long, and heavy. Comparing the features of the two lenses I would definitely go with the Sigma.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Blurryeyed wrote:

You're not going to gain very much, if you really want a large working distance you may consider the Sigma 180 or the Nikon 200, but you have to realize that these are big, long, and heavy. Comparing the features of the two lenses I would definitely go with the Sigma.

I use a Tamron 180 F3.5 and a Sigma 150 F2.8 - both macro, and I think they are every bit as good as the Nikkors. Build quality is better on the Nikkor, but the optical quality is quite good on all of them. I think all of these are internal focus design, which in the 3rd party lenses means that you won't see the same angle of view as the stated focal length would indicate - I think the Sigma drops down to around 105mm, and the Tamon about 140mm - you still get the full magnification of 1:1, but you will need to be a little closer than you'd expect in order to get that. A minor point that really doesn't hurt your image, in any case.

Larry J

Thank you for your quick reply.... Maybe I am having a GAS attack... LOL

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Gene51 wrote:

I use a Tamron 180 F3.5 and a Sigma 150 F2.8 - bot... (show quote)

Interesting, I had the Sigma 150 and I should have included that in my recommendation, I sold it when I purchased the 180mm. The 180mm has a significantly greater working distance than the 150mm did, but it is a very large lens, larger than the Canon equivalent.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Larry J wrote:

I am currently using a Nikon 500D (love it). My question has several parts and I will try to be as concise as possible. Have been using a Nikon 85mm 1:3.5 for Macro shots. I am considering going to either a Nikon
105mm 2.8 or a Sigma 105mm 2.8.
Questions are: 1. Will I gain very much going from 85 to 105 (not as easy to bend over any more..LOL)
2. Buying the Nikon vs Sigma
Inputs will be greatly appreciated

Larry,Consider the Nikon 200MM Micro Nikkor. Great quality and gives you room to photograph butterflys and Dragon Flys without spoofing them. My 105 Nikon Micro spoofs them.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

PixelStan77 wrote:

Larry,Consider the Nikon 200MM Micro Nikkor. Great quality and gives you room to photograph butterflys and Dragon Flys without spoofing them. My 105 Nikon Micro spoofs them.

I believe that the Nikon lens was introduced in 1993 and is still the same lens today. The Sigma has newer design and improved materials are used in the manufacture of the lens such as their FLD elements and it has image stabilization that actually is good enough to make a difference in macro, I know because I have used this lens.

Larry J

Thank you all so much for your insight and advice. I am going down to Roberts Camera in Indianapolis in a week or so to check them all out. Will let you all know what I do if anything. Thanks again

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Blurryeyed wrote:

I believe that the Nikon lens was introduced in 1993 and is still the same lens today. The Sigma has newer design and improved materials are used in the manufacture of the lens such as their FLD elements and it has image stabilization that actually is good enough to make a difference in macro, I know because I have used this lens.

The 105 Micro Nikkor that I have had for 12 years or so has VR. It is easily maneuverable and can also serve very well as a short telephoto when needed. Based on my experience, the older design is not a problem at all...not sure how you would improve it, other than maybe updated VR. It is a Gold Ring lens, as well.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

larryepage wrote:

The 105 Micro Nikkor that I have had for 12 years or so has VR. It is easily maneuverable and can also serve very well as a short telephoto when needed. Based on my experience, the older design is not a problem at all...not sure how you would improve it, other than maybe updated VR. It is a Gold Ring lens, as well.

The poster had recommended the 200mm which is a 1993 design that does not have the advancements that Sigma has made in their line. I am a Canon shooter and had the Canon 180L which like the Nikon is an older design, the Sigma is a better lens than the Canon 180L, and I have to assume that the Nikon lens would be similar to the Canon, the Nikon 200 does not have VR.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Blurryeyed wrote:

The poster had recommended the 200mm which is a 1993 design that does not have the advancements that Sigma has made in their line. I am a Canon shooter and had the Canon 180L which like the Nikon is an older design, the Sigma is a better lens than the Canon 180L, and I have to assume that the Nikon lens would be similar to the Canon, the Nikon 200 does not have VR.

Understood. Macro photography can be very difficult, and depending on the chosen subjects, there is sometimes not a real choice of focal length. I've been very happy with the 105, but I don't do live insects except for an occasional butterfly, and they are usually not very skittish. I did recently add a Nikkor 60mm Micro to use as a copy lens, because it has a really flat field of focus. I have a friend who photographs live insects with a 40mm lens She's a lot better and more patient than I am, though.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Blurryeyed wrote:

The poster had recommended the 200mm which is a 1993 design that does not have the advancements that Sigma has made in their line. I am a Canon shooter and had the Canon 180L which like the Nikon is an older design, the Sigma is a better lens than the Canon 180L, and I have to assume that the Nikon lens would be similar to the Canon, the Nikon 200 does not have VR.

Serious Macro photographers don't use VR because they are using a tripod.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Blurryeyed wrote:

I believe that the Nikon lens was introduced in 1993 and is still the same lens today.

The ED Micro-Nikkor 200 f/4.0 was optically redesigned in 2006, from 9 elements in 6 groups to 13 in 8. It also is 390 grams heavier. Pretty hard to find a bad macro lens of any brand, though.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

PixelStan77 wrote:

Serious Macro photographers don't use VR because they are using a tripod.

Or an electronic flash.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

Try the sigma 105 F1.4; it will literally blow your socks off- nikon can't get any where near it.