Macro zoom lenses

[JeffH]

I'm in the market for a macro lens and, as a result of the many excellent reports about it on this site, had been thinking of the Sigma 150.

However, my daughter bought me the RSPB Guide to Digital Wildlife Photography for Christmas (by David Tipling) and he says he uses a 70-180 macro zoom lens - I presume it's a Nikon which retails at about £850 and is described (by Nikon) as "..the world's first macro zoom".

Does anyone have any experience of a using a macro zoom lens and, if so, what are the advantages and disadvantages - apart from the obvious benefit of the variable focal length and, in the case of the Nikon, the even more obvious disadvantage of the price!

Thanks for your help.

Jeff

[canonman]

Hi Jeff
A lot will depend on what camera you have I guess you must have a nikon if you are thinking of going that route.
I can tell you that the sigma 150 macro is a fine lens and at half the price don't think you will be disappointed with it.
I'm sure one or two others on the site will give you advise
Mick

[Boddie]

Yep the results on this site speak for themselves. That Nikon might be a fine lens but I really fail to see how you could possibly improve upon the results of the 105 or 150. They both produce razor sharp images but the 150 has the obvious reach benefit. Some say the 105 has it marginally on quality. I have the 105 and cant see it myself - the images with both the 105 and 150 are superb. Personally I could not handhold the 150. The 105 I can just about manage, but even then prefer to use a monopod.

Unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket forget about the Nikon. I'd rather buy the 105 (or 150) and dedicate a body to it.

[Oy]

The Nikon 70-180mm "Macro Zoom" is a fine lens - but not a true macro.

It achieves 1.133:1 at 180mm but at 70mm only manages 1:3

My advice - get the Sigma. Either 105mm or 150mm. I use the 150mm.

[JeffH]

Thanks fellas - as ever, some good advice there.

As a Canon user I wasn't actually thinking of buying the Nikon 70-180 but was more interested in the concept of a Macro zoom generally. Having said that and since done a bit of 'Google' research, it seems that there aren't any true (ie. 1:1) zoom macros on the market anyway - unless somewhere out there knows better!

[Boddie]

Yep, you are correct. There are a few lenses that claim to be telephoto / macro but you will never get the same result as a dedicated macro lens. They are good for all purpose but tend to be a jack of all if you catch my drift. For me my macro lens is probably my favourite as it finally allowed me to produce a stunning, as opposed to acceptable, image and really taught me that with the right tools anything is possible. Before investing in the dedicated macro my shots were just OK, using the same lens for macro, telephoto and everything in between, but with dedicated lenses you really have more ability, and begin to enjoy the disciplines more

[pekster]

Right thats it now, I was in 2 minds as to wether to get a Sigma 150 macro or go for the nikon 80-200 2.8, think its gonna be the macro for sure now. Cheers guys

Richard

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pekster

Right thats it now, I was in 2 minds as to wether to get a Sigma 150 macro or go for the nikon 80-200 2.8, think its gonna be the macro for sure now. Cheers guys

Richard

good choice , though you might also want to consider the sig 105 or tamron 180 macro lenses as well.

[Zebethyal]

Originally Posted by pekster

Right thats it now, I was in 2 minds as to wether to get a Sigma 150 macro or go for the nikon 80-200 2.8, think its gonna be the macro for sure now. Cheers guys

Richard

For about the same price as the Sigma 150 you could have a factory demo Nikon 105mm Micro 2.8 AF-D lens (not the new VR version) currently £296 at Cameta Camera in the states or a used one for a fair bit less, I am pretty sure I paid less than £200 for mine, much higher resale value if you ever decide to sell it.

Are you ever ging to make use of the AF capability for a 1:1 macro shot anyway? if so what is the benefit of HSM/IS/VR on a macro lens? Stick a cheap TC-200 (£30 manual only 2 x converter) on the Nikon 105mm and you have a 210mm macro lens that will do 2:1.

You could probably do this with the Sigma as well, but there have also been some compatibility issues with Sigma lenses and the newer Nikon bodies. Nikon lenses will always be compatible with Nikon bodies and are specifically designed for use with each other.

Yes you pay a premium for keeping with the brand name, but in this case especially as the lens has been replaced with a new one which quite a few people argue is worse than the previous model and the price of the older model now compares favourably with the third party makes.

Regards

Tim

[Blackdog]

If you can justify a fixed focal length macro lens, you might want to look at the Tamron SP AF90 f2.8 Di. I bought one a few months ago to use with my EOS5D on the recommmendation of the manager of my local camera shop. I buy most of my kit from him as he will match Warehouse Express prices for me.
I have to say, as all my other lenses are genuine Canon I was a bit reluctant to try the Tamron (am I a closet camera snob ), but it is very, very good indeed. They are on W/Express at the moment for £278.99