Worth upgrading my macro kit?

[Tobyh]

Dilemma -

I have a Tamron 90mm (plus Extension tubes and Converter etc) that I've been relatively happy with. Results are good but...

I've had my eye on the Sigma 150mm. The extra reach from the lense would be very welcome , also it has internal focusing meaning that the end of the lens doesnt suddenly start shaking the plant on which my subject is sitting as I focus in on it. I've heard good things (and seen great pictures) from this lens.

I think the only thing I miss from the Tamron is that I do need to get very close for dragonfly and butterfly shots.

As the poker gods smiled on me last night I have the cash to almost cover the cost. Especially if I then sell the Tamron.

Has anyone got both the lenses or switched similar to this?

Anyone with the Sigma comment on how this lens is on handheld shots - the Tamron is pretty easy to handhold, just wondering if the extra length will mean more time on the tripod ...

Any advice or opinions welcomed.

Thanks


TobyH

[Maccattack]

Hi Toby , I don't use the sigma but have read good things about it, the guy who does macro in outdoor photography uses it to good effect, I have a 105 macro and still tend to want better reach , you don't say which camera you use .With hand held shots some vibration reduction systems are coming out ,might be worth waiting a bit (although this must increase the cost) although poker winnings may have ment you've already rushed out and bought the sigma anyway? ps I still use the tamron on my old film camera.

[Tobyh]

Thanks Maccattack,

Im using a Nikon D50, no VR / IS included on that model.

I haven't bought the Sigma yet - it normally takes me a little while weighing it all up before I will, even if the money is poker winnings

[matt_xyz]

Hi Toby,

I have the Sigma 150 but have never used the Tamron. Having said that I used to use my Panasonic FZ30 with close-up lenses for macro, so I know all about having to get close to your subject!

The Sigma is a very nice lens, but is very difficult to hand hold. I have pretty much given up handholding because it just doesn't get the best from the lens. From what I've read, I don't think image quality will be noticeably different to the Tamron, so the only gain you'll get is the greater working distance. This is very useful and is something I appreciate after using my FZ30. However, I don't think the Sigma 150 offers that much extra working distance than the Tamron and the chances are if an insect will let you get within 3 feet of it then it will also let you get within 2 feet of it (or whatever the measurements are). I typically find that an insect either won't let you within 6 feet of it or it will let you get within inches of it.

The other factor to consider is your extension tubes. The extra magnification they provide is measured by the extension tubes in mm divided by the focal length of the lens. So on a 'long' 150mm lens they have less impact than on a 90mm lens. I tend to use 68mm of extension tubes which gives me an increase of 68/150 = 0.45. So I can achieve 1.45 : 1 magnification (if my maths is correct). To get an equivalent increase in magnification on your lens you would only need 40mm of tubes and so lose less light. Alternatively, 68mm of tubes on your lens would give you 1.75 : 1 magnification.

So, yes the 150 lens is a very nice lens but I'm not sure I'd give up what is already a very good macro lens in order to get it. There are certain things that your lens is better at (handholding and extension tubes). So I think you need both lenses

Matt

[pressld2]

Hi Toby,

I was using an 80-400 (non-macro) zoom set at the 80 mm end of it's range with extension tubes on my Nikon D70. Best results were like this one...



... but this is not full frame. I had to crop down to somewhere between half and two thirds of the original image width to get that.

Then I bought my Sigma 150 at the beginning of May and am now getting shots like this...



with no cropping involved.

So far I have only ever used the 150 hand held but unless the day is a very bright one I have three SB200 flash guns mounted on the front of the lens, one at fuill power and the other two at reduced power for fill in.

There are more examples in my gallery. Any macro shots with an upload date of 5 May or later were taken with the Sigma 150 and they are almost all full frame.

Dave P.

[Maccattack]

Sounds like you'd end up more tripod bound with the sigma , maybe end up buying more tripod gear like focussing racks etc . Could be worth it if you take fewer pictures but better quality , I've only managed to use a tripod for dragons rarely . As Dave says you could use the new fancy macroflash unit to avoid the tripod , but this may involve more good poker games first (if you really want good working distance then the 200 nikon macro is pretty sharp tho much more expensive than the sigma and quite large)
Cheers Malcolm

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

I use the Tamron 90 & the Sigma 180 and I wouldn't get rid of either.
99.999 % of the time I use them on a tripod to get the best out of them even with dragons (early starts pay off).
There have been a few times when photographing a group of flowers or fungi from above when I wished I had a sigma 50mm ! That 1.6x conversion facter can be a pain sometimes

neil