Sigma 105mm, f/2.8 DG, OS Macro Lens User Review
Apr 7, 2020 16:41:21 #
Nearly every day we have a question or two about macro lenses. Why do I need one? Which is the best? How about this one or that one? Can I get the same results with regular zoom lenses that I currently own? etc? etc? Rarely does anyone say "I just bought this or that macro lens and here are my thoughts and a few images". Well, I just purchased the lens in the topic title block and I told you all about it in an ill advised post last week. I thought the very least I could do was to follow up that unfortunate post with my feelings about said lens now that it is in my hands. And I'll try to post a few images here to see if I'm allowed to do that. The lens was on sale on-line for $469 plus tax, a $500 discount off the normal price. I don't know how much longer the sale will last.
First, it is light weight. I own a Sigma 180mm, f/2.8 macro and it's very heavy and substantial. This lens feels much less so. Out of the box it comes with a swell carrying case and lens hoods (an extra extender for DX cameras). I put it on my D810 and took some shots around my house, yard and neighborhood yesterday afternoon (sunny) and when walking the dog this morning (cloudy). I'll try to list my setting for each shot. The optical stabilization is very noisy and the view jumps around a bit in the viewfinder. Both issues are annoying but they did not seem to affect the resultant images. All these shots were taken hand held, shot in RAW and processed with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR). Based on these early results, I think I'll keep the lens. However, I'm not sure I would buy it at the regular price of $969.
Finally, If you also own this lens I would be interested if your thoughts are in line with mine or if you feel differently. Feel free to post some of your shots with the lens.
First, it is light weight. I own a Sigma 180mm, f/2.8 macro and it's very heavy and substantial. This lens feels much less so. Out of the box it comes with a swell carrying case and lens hoods (an extra extender for DX cameras). I put it on my D810 and took some shots around my house, yard and neighborhood yesterday afternoon (sunny) and when walking the dog this morning (cloudy). I'll try to list my setting for each shot. The optical stabilization is very noisy and the view jumps around a bit in the viewfinder. Both issues are annoying but they did not seem to affect the resultant images. All these shots were taken hand held, shot in RAW and processed with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR). Based on these early results, I think I'll keep the lens. However, I'm not sure I would buy it at the regular price of $969.
Finally, If you also own this lens I would be interested if your thoughts are in line with mine or if you feel differently. Feel free to post some of your shots with the lens.
Paperweight - 1/160, f/4. ISO 100
(Download)
Perfume Bottle - 1/160, f/8, ISO 100
(Download)
Rattle - 1/20, f/8, ISO 400
(Download)
Rattle Figure - 1/20, f/8, ISO 400
(Download)
Mask - 1/50, f/4, ISO 250
(Download)
Plant - 1/125, f/7.1, ISO 200
(Download)
Blue Flower - 1/400, f/9, ISO 160
(Download)
Mums - 1/125, f/10, ISO 200
(Download)
1/400, f/10, ISO 160
(Download)
Wilted Flowers - 1/100, f/9, ISO 200
(Download)
Apr 7, 2020 16:52:39 #
I have this lens. It's the only macro lens I own and bought it maybe 4-5 years ago. Personally I find the DOF challenging, but I've gotten some pretty neat shots (and lot of throwaways). Here are some of my faves.
Apr 7, 2020 16:57:06 #
planepics wrote:
I have this lens. It's the only macro lens I own and bought it maybe 4-5 years ago. Personally I find the DOF challenging, but I've gotten some pretty neat shots (and lot of throwaways). Here are some of my faves.
No pics. Look forward to seeing them.
Apr 7, 2020 17:26:47 #
Apr 7, 2020 17:43:23 #
saxman71 wrote:
No pics. Look forward to seeing them.
Sorry - computer had a brain fart and had to restart it. Hopefully here they are now.
these are all from our garden in June of Last year. I think most or all of them were taken with small apertures and external flash (but I wouldn't bet my life on it).
Apr 7, 2020 18:03:58 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Truly beautiful shots, saxman, and an informative post to boot.
Mike
Mike
Thank you Mike. None of them will win any awards but they might help inform some folks.
Apr 7, 2020 18:10:06 #
planepics wrote:
Sorry - computer had a brain fart and had to restart it. Hopefully here they are now.
these are all from our garden in June of Last year. I think most or all of them were taken with small apertures and external flash (but I wouldn't bet my life on it).
these are all from our garden in June of Last year. I think most or all of them were taken with small apertures and external flash (but I wouldn't bet my life on it).
Yes they are. Thanks for playing along.
Apr 7, 2020 20:46:14 #
saxman71 wrote:
Yes they are. Thanks for playing along.
Thanks. I think the squash blossom looks like and alien.
Apr 8, 2020 03:36:32 #
The rattle figure hitz me as a funkie Toltec version of the Monkey and the Buzzard in “Straighten Up and Fly Right” ... Oooooh, “Funkie Munkie” might be a Ben and Jerry’s flavor yet undiscovered until I explore waaaaay deeper into the freezer at Walmart ?
Thanx for the insurrection:-)
Thanx for the insurrection:-)
Apr 8, 2020 03:49:55 #
As to the weight difference from 105 to 180, both f/2.8 do the math ... when you double the FL it follows you double the element diameters, and double diameters means quadruple the areas. IOW a lotta weight !
Apr 8, 2020 03:57:30 #
Pablo8
Loc: Nottingham UK.
User ID wrote:
As to the weight difference from 105 to 180, both f/2.8 do the math ... when you double the FL it follows you double the element diameters, and double diameters means quadruple the areas. IOW a lotta weight !
I have both of these lenses, but never had to query why there was a difference in weight. The physical sizes was a bit of a give-away. If all else fails, use logic.
Apr 8, 2020 04:29:44 #
Pablo8 wrote:
I have both of these lenses, but never had to query why there was a difference in weight. The physical sizes was a bit of a give-away. If all else fails, use logic.
When “all else fails” put your head between your knees !!!
Apr 8, 2020 09:24:23 #
Apr 8, 2020 10:17:53 #
User ID wrote:
As to the weight difference from 105 to 180, both f/2.8 do the math ... when you double the FL it follows you double the element diameters, and double diameters means quadruple the areas. IOW a lotta weight !
Never been particularly good at math. Wouldn't 2x105=210? But I digress. I just thought the lens would be a bit heavier - feel a little bit more substantial. Certainly, the fact that it is light is not a deal breaker in any way and I did not mean to imply that it is.
Apr 8, 2020 10:27:13 #
Pablo8 wrote:
I have both of these lenses, but never had to query why there was a difference in weight. The physical sizes was a bit of a give-away. If all else fails, use logic.
My point wasn't that the lens was much lighter than the 180mm - really, that's why I bought it. But it's so much lighter it surprised me so I put that fact in my post. It's even lighter than my 24x70mm, f/2.8 lens. Since I started buying full frame lenses a couple years ago I have just come to expect heavier glass. By the way, where are your pics?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.