Sigma 180mm macro

[Gaza]

Hi guys.

Does anyone here, own / use the Sigma 180mm f 3.f macro lens ?
If so. What is you opinion.
I was thinking of purchasing a Sigma 150mm f 2.8 macro lens, as i see they are popular with a lot of photographers.
But i have had this 180mm offered to me, Second hand.
Can anyone advise me, please.

[Fourwings]

Personally I think you would be far better off buying a f2.8 150mm macro. The 180mm is not a bad lens but it well known that the images that it produces are not as sharp as those that come from the 150mm, plus it is considerably larger and heavier than the 150mm and is almost impossible to use at its optimum without a tripod.

I have owned a Sigma 150mm f2.8 DG EX HSM macro for over 3 years and cannot fault it, the images that it produces are second to none, its the one lens that I own that I couldn't be without now, others who own it will say exactly the same thing.

If you wish to see the quality it can produce have a look at my website (link below), most of the Dragonfly, Butterfly & other insect based gallerys were taken using the Sigma 150 mcaro.

[Gaza]

Cheers Steve.
That's all the proof i need.
The 150mm it will be

Thanks for the link.

[Fourwings]

Thats ok Gaza, glad to help, you will not be disappointed with the Sigma 150mm macro.

[Boddie]

Yep, took me a while to get one but have to agree with Steve that I could not go without now

[david156]

Hi.

Glad I saw this thread.
Am saving for a macro and was thinking about the 180. Will now look at the 150 and your website, steve.

David

[Gaza]

Well. That's helped the both of us, David
Once again. Thanks Steve, and thank you Boddie for your follow up.

[DaiTheDragon]

I have a Canon 100mm Macro and the Sigma 180mm Macro. I think all last summers images were shot with the Sigma. Yes it is a bit heavier but I use a monopod. I doubt if anyone could tell the difference in image quality between the 150 and 180 unless they were printed huge. Don't forget post processing the images can make a big difference so a lot depends on how good your PP is.

Dai

[Gaza]

Cheers Dai

That's just thrown the cat among the pigeons.
First i couldn't make up my mind.
Then i did.
Now i cant

Checked your web out. Again, some stunning shots there.
Going to have to think about this one.

Thanks for your input

[Lancashire Lad]

To state that the Sigma 180mm is "well known as being less sharp than the 150" is, I think, actually rather misleading.

Comparing Sigma's MTF charts for each lens shows that other than for the areas towards the extreme edges of frame, the 180mm is the sharper lens overall. (The MTF chart details for contrast are virtually identical for both lenses).

I use the 180mm, and agree with Dai. - I would defy anyone upon seeing identical "real life" shots taken with each lens, to be able to determine which shot was taken with which lens. (Lets face it, we shoot wildlife, we don't shoot test charts, and even if we did, the image would need to be massively enlarged before any critical differences might become evident).

The choice of whether a 150 or 180 would be "better" for any given photographer should be governed by what type of subjects are of primary interest. - The 180mm offers more working distance, but this has to be considered against its additional weight, and slightly slower max aperture.

I would agree that there are significantly more 150's in use, but would suggest this is more to do with the 150's lighter weight and lesser cost, rather than any noticable differences in image quality.

I assume that the 180mm you've been offered is in excellent condition and is at a good saving over new. (Presumably you will have chance to test before buying). If that's correct, and I was in your position, for such a quality lens, I'd bite the seller's hand off.

Regards,
Mike.