authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Been wanting a macro lens and I simply do not know which lens to go with.
I will be buying new. The 105mm 2.8 OS is much cheaper since it is on sale
but I have people telling me I do not have to be as close with the 150mm 2.8 OS
and should buy it.

Any advice is always appreciated

Zooman 1

I have the Sigma 150 macro and the Canon 100 macro. I use the 150 most of the time, as I do not need to get so close to the subject, which for me is a plus. I don't see any stand out difference in IQ between the 2 lenses.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I use a Canon 100 as in my mind a compromises. I would have goon to the 150 except for the cost. The difference, as I see it, is how close you have to get (less than 100mm was too close) was the cost and how often I will use it. So in short it COST.

photoman43

I have three Nikon macro lenses: 55mm, 105mm and 200mm with a tripod collar mount. All were purchased in that order. The one is use the most-95% of the time is the 200mm as more distance is often needed and the angle of view (from the longer focal length) results in cleaner backgrounds. And I like doing my work on a tripod so it having a tripod collar mount is a huge plus.

I believe the Sigma 150mm has a tripod collar mount too. I would go with the 150mm model if it has all of the features you need.

I use manual focus 100% of the time for my macro shots. AF and IS are nice for non macro work, but not needed for macro work.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I have an assortment of macro lenses including the Nikon 200mm which is a beast at 2-1/2 pounds. It does give that extra reach which is a benefit at times.

Do keep in mind that if you are using a flash that the physical law of light is that the intensity of the light diminishes with the square of the distance. The is how astronomers determine how far away stars are from earth.

What this means to us as macro photographers is that the longer focal length lenses will require more power from the flash than when shooting at closer distances and diffusion of the light of course comes into play as well.

Not a big deal however something to consider when optimizing your gear for an outing.

bleirer

The difference in working distance from the front of lens is 5.4 inches versus 7.6. So will being two inches closer scare your subject away? I wouldn't say so.

Depth of field for macro runs with effective f stop and magnification, not focal length, so there is no difference assuming the same magnification.

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

It depends on the photography you want to do. If you can answer that, your decision will be much easier.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

When I started looking at Macros/Micros I first considered the Nikkor 105mm I figured I didn't need the fare 2.8, I ended up with the Nikkor 200mm, twice the working distance the price was half again as much as the 105. I glad I made this choice. If I need to get closer I use Nikon extension tubes.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Fully agree.

On the very rare occasion when that 2 inches would stop you getting that shot simply accept you can't shoot it at 1:1 and crop in post.

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

You are correct. It's all about working distance and subject matter. Look up the specs on each and decide which one will suit your needs better. I use a full frame camera and use a 150 Sigma and a 180 Tamron. I shoot mostly natural subjects often somewhat active.

dave.m

Yo don't say whether you are working FF or cropped body. But the principles are the same. There is a trade off between size and weight, and distance from the subject.

Distance from the subject can be critical for two reasons: a live subject won't like a huge lens and camera positioned often a few mm from them; of often greater importance is the ability to light the subject when the lens/camera/ photographer is blocking all light.

I developed an interest in macro and explored 3 lenses for FF before deciding on the Sigma 150 - its reasonably compact and not too heavy, does 1:1 without problems, and gives a good distance for live subjects, and allows natural lighting to be used without too many issues. Also because it has f/2.8 aperture it trebles up as a pretty good longer portrait lens, and is good for astronomy on a simple tracking mount! It doesn't have IS but I've not found that an issue as IS is not so useful for macro as invariably I use a tripod, and for portraiture a wider aperture and high shutter speed.

If you are using a cropped body camera then the 105 will give a similar focal length (x1.6 if Canon) which may give you greater than 1:1 (not sure as haven't tested) but it won't give the same lens to subject distance (it is still a 105 mm lens that the camera 'crops' the centre from after all.)

If you can, support your local camera shop and test what they have . It may cost a little more for the lens but I have found with mine the support and assistance more than balances that

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I shoot with both the 60, 105, and 200 micro. If you are shooting bee's, or anything dangerous, the 150 would be better. My favorite is the 105, seems the middle ground for me. I can get close, but not too close, and it isolates the background nicely.
Choosing a Macro is like choosing anything in photography, it is highly individualized.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

I recently purchased a Sigma 105mm, f/2.8 OS lens and posted some shots and sort of a "user review" review of that lens here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-640268-1.html

I also own the Sigma 180MM, f/2.8 OS lens. You can see a few examples of what I can do with that lens here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-613990-1.html

Frankly, you can't go wrong with either lens but the 180MM is much heavier. Give the weight of the lens and your ability to hold it steady some thought before making your purchase.

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Happy to report I bought a brand new Sigma 150mm 2.8 EX DG OS HSM lens. Being it has been discontinued I had a real time finding one. I live in Michigan and found one new in the box at Procam Livonia. All the reviews I have read rate this lens as top notch in both build and performance as did many of you Uglyhedgehog users. Will post some photos when available.

Thanks for everyone's assistance

smussler Loc: Land O Lakes, FL - Formerly Miller Place, NY

Star distance is calculated by Parallax - not light intensity.
https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html


With shorter focal length macros, your own shadow is blocking the light on your subject or casting an unwanted shadow.
If you want to use a slide copying adapter, which is why I purchased my first macro, the focal length is critical.
What is needed depends on if a FF or cropped sensor camera is being used. 60mm for FF, 40mm for Cropped. (With Nikon Cameras)
If doing macro of Bees, Butterflies, etc - the longer focal lengths give you a better working distance.