|
 | 
15-02-2007, 07:21 PM
| | Active Member | | Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 32
| | | 105 v 150 macro
After many years away from SLR photography I have treated myself to a Nikon D80. I am thinking of buying a Sigma 105 or 150 macro and was wondering about the relative merits as both seem excellent lenses though the 150 is more expensive but does this extra length make it more versatile or less as it is harder to hand hold?
Comments from users would be much appreciated.
Jonathan |
15-02-2007, 07:56 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: NW England
Posts: 1,981
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
The thing that clinches it for me with the 150mm is the HSM - quiet and fast focusing. The 105mm doesn't have it.
Handholding depends on your hand. I've had good results handholding my 150mm.
__________________ Oy 'Owning a camera makes you a photographer in the same way that owning a guitar makes you a musician.' www.OYPhotos.co.uk |
15-02-2007, 08:03 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 3,655
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Firstly let me say that both are excellent lenses.
I own a Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG HSM macro and it is a superb lens, its built like a tank and works like a dream.
The images it produces are pin-sharp and with it being a very fast (f2.8) lens you have the chance to get some very fast shutter speeds to enable you to get good images when conditions are less than perfect.
Have a look at this on the reviews page, http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/re...uct/294/cat/31
It will save me some typing time  
The only downside to this lens is its weight, it is a very difficult lens to use handheld for macro work in all but the very brightest sunlight so you need a tripod to get the best out of it, its fine to use handheld if you are using it as a 150mm telephoto.
Hope this helps you with your choice. |
15-02-2007, 08:05 PM
| | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 3,655
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oy  The thing that clinches it for me with the 150mm is the HSM - quiet and fast focusing. The 105mm doesn't have it.
Handholding depends on your hand. I've had good results handholding my 150mm. | I must have the DT's then Dave
I just can't seem to get the desired results handheld the majority of the time!  |
15-02-2007, 08:17 PM
| | Active Member | | Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 32
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourwings I must have the DT's then Dave
I just can't seem to get the desired results handheld the majority of the time! | I note that a VR version of the Nikon 105mm is now available which could be worth looking at.
Jonathan |
15-02-2007, 08:21 PM
| | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 3,655
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonhawkins I note that a VR version of the Nikon 105mm is now available which could be worth looking at.
Jonathan | But I'm a Canon user, not sure I'd dare touch a Nikon |
16-02-2007, 07:25 AM
|  | Knight Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: N.E.SOMERSET
Posts: 6,815
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
The 150 is excellent as is the 105 I went for the 105 as it is lighter and
in my opinion easier to handle cost comes into the equation
Will you will use it (the 150) all the time and justify the additional cost?
__________________
You cannot maintain an ecology, if you lose any of the pieces. |
16-02-2007, 01:13 PM
| | Active Member | | Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 32
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightshade The 150 is excellent as is the 105 I went for the 105 as it is lighter and
in my opinion easier to handle cost comes into the equation
Will you will use it (the 150) all the time and justify the additional cost? | I suspect I will go for the 105mm because of it's smaller size, less weight and cost.
Jonathan |
16-02-2007, 02:31 PM
|  | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: IVYBRIDGE,
Posts: 368
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
This month one of the photography magazines compared a number of macro lenses but not the Sigma 150. The Tamron 90mm came out on top beating the Sigma 105. The Nikon 105 VR was highky rated although a lot heavier due to the VR.
I have the Sigma 150 and my only complaint is its size and weight which can sometimes make it awkward to use in confined spaces. It is certainly much quieter than the Tamron and it is internal focussing which I like. The other advanatge is given it is 55mm longer you can fill the frame from slightly futher away.
__________________
Trying is the first step towards failure |
16-02-2007, 06:36 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sunny Doncaster
Posts: 4,351
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerTheCat This month one of the photography magazines compared a number of macro lenses but not the Sigma 150. The Tamron 90mm came out on top beating the Sigma 105. The Nikon 105 VR was highky rated although a lot heavier due to the VR.
I have the Sigma 150 and my only complaint is its size and weight which can sometimes make it awkward to use in confined spaces. It is certainly much quieter than the Tamron and it is internal focussing which I like. The other advanatge is given it is 55mm longer you can fill the frame from slightly futher away. |
What is the Sigma 150 55mm longer than?  |
16-02-2007, 07:35 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 4,356
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boddie What is the Sigma 150 55mm longer than? | the Sigma 95mm presumably |
19-02-2007, 10:54 PM
| | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lincoln
Posts: 454
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt_xyz the Sigma 95mm presumably | A 105mm makes a beautiful portrait lens at least the 2.8 Nikon does as well as fulfilling it's macro function. A very important point as we have an expensive hobby. |
20-02-2007, 07:50 AM
|  | Active Member | | Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Harrow, Middlesex
Posts: 94
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Another thing to consider with macro work is how often you will actually use the AF mode (HSM/AF-S/whatever) as this will alter your magnification to something other than say 1:1?
Handholding and in manual mode you can set the camera to your favourite macro settings, frame what you want in the picture then move back or forwards slightly to obtain focus on the part you deem most worthy of being in focus (eyes in the case of insects) you are unlikely to have massive DOF at 1:1 even at f/22 or higher. Performing this procedure from a tripod ideally requires a 4 way macro focusing stage unless you are particularly good at moving your tripod a few mm left/right and don't mind the image being reframed by focusing in/out by which time I usually find the insect in question is long gone.
The 150mm will give you more time to frame and worry the insects less as you will be focusing from further away to achieve the same image as say the 105mm lens.
Many find a monopod a good compromise with macro work as it is easier to move about than a tripod yet gives more stability than handholding.
Regards
Tim  |
24-02-2007, 10:39 AM
| | Active Member | | Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 32
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebethyal The 150mm will give you more time to frame and worry the insects less as you will be focusing from further away to achieve the same image as say the 105mm lens. | I tried out the 105mm at our local Jessops. I noted that you do need to get awfully close to something to fill the frame which makes me think the 150mm might be better but I was hoping not to have to go to the extra size and weight.
Jonathan |
24-02-2007, 11:03 AM
| | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 3,655
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Go for the 150mm John, you will not regret the purchase I can assure you.
Its such a versatile and well made bit of gear, In my opinion the end results easily justify its price tag.
Here are a couple of my images taken with the Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG macro, I think they show just how adaptable the lens is from 1:1 macro work right through to using it as a high speed short range telephoto. Green Hairstreak 
Fulmar  |
24-02-2007, 11:49 AM
| | Knight Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: N.E.SOMERSET
Posts: 6,815
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
For 1:1 on both lenses the focusing is I believe
150mm 14,9"
105mm 12.4
I do like the 150 but could not justify the expense
for occasional use
__________________
You cannot maintain an ecology, if you lose any of the pieces. |
24-02-2007, 03:24 PM
|  | Knight Grand Cross of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Nottingham
Posts: 12,181
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
I wouldn't let the weight issue bother you, it certainly doesn't bother me. I find the 150mm nicely balanced, using a monopod or tripod with it can produce superb results, as you can see from Steves shots.
I used mine the other week taking shots of snowdrops when this chap appeared:  
These shots were hand held, no monpod or tripod.
Out of the two "big" lenses I've got the 150mm is the one I wouldn't do without. As soon as the insect season is upon us, it will live on my camera, whilst the 50-500mm will gather dust! |
24-02-2007, 03:34 PM
| | Officer of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 512
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by glsammy I wouldn't let the weight issue bother you, it certainly doesn't bother me. I find the 150mm nicely balanced, using a monopod or tripod with it can produce superb results, as you can see from Steves shots.
I used mine the other week taking shots of snowdrops when this chap appeared:
These shots were hand held, no monpod or tripod.
Out of the two "big" lenses I've got the 150mm is the one I wouldn't do without. As soon as the insect season is upon us, it will live on my camera, whilst the 50-500mm will gather dust! | I wish that I had gone for the 150mm as I find the 105mm nearly impossible to hand hold and am needing to use a tripod anyway; all of the photos taken without it have been blurry. I started today with the tripod so I just hope that some are OK when I down load them later.
While we are on the subject of the 105mm, I see photos of really close up shots of flies eyes that have been taken with it; how do they obtain these, as my understanding is that you can't use the x2 teleconverter with this lense but can with the 150mm.
Kerry |
24-02-2007, 03:43 PM
| | Knight Grand Cross of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Nottingham
Posts: 12,181
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerry I wish that I had gone for the 150mm as I find the 105mm nearly impossible to hand hold and am needing to use a tripod anyway; all of the photos taken without it have been blurry. I started today with the tripod so I just hope that some are OK when I down load them later.
While we are on the subject of the 105mm, I see photos of really close up shots of flies eyes that have been taken with it; how do they obtain these, as my understanding is that you can't use the x2 teleconverter with this lense but can with the 150mm.
Kerry | You don't use a converter, you use extension tubes. Here's a common darter I took with the 150mm + 61mm of extension tubes: 
These provide way better than 1:1, which the 150mm will do anyway. Got to have an obliging insect though, as the focus range shortens dramatically!
The extension tubes come in a set of three, I got mine from Jessops. they pass through the electrical info so you retain AF and metering.
You can put any of the three on, or stack them, then the lens. This shot was with all three. |
24-02-2007, 05:14 PM
| | Officer of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 512
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by glsammy You don't use a converter, you use extension tubes. Here's a common darter I took with the 150mm + 61mm of extension tubes:
These provide way better than 1:1, which the 150mm will do anyway. Got to have an obliging insect though, as the focus range shortens dramatically!
The extension tubes come in a set of three, I got mine from Jessops. they pass through the electrical info so you retain AF and metering.
You can put any of the three on, or stack them, then the lens. This shot was with all three. |
So can these extension tubes be used with the 105mm? How close were you to get that image?
Kerry |
24-02-2007, 05:21 PM
| | Knight Grand Cross of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Nottingham
Posts: 12,181
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerry So can these extension tubes be used with the 105mm? How close were you to get that image?
Kerry | Yep, they can be used with most lenses, especially good with Macro lenses. As they simply fit between the camera and lens, all you need to do is get the right set to suite your camera. The Jessop set I got cost around £75.
As for that image, I was VERY close! almost touching the creatures! You can still get excellent eye detail without the extensions, here's one of Steves, just using the lens at the 1:1 ratio: 
Impressive eh? |
24-02-2007, 05:32 PM
| | Knight Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: N.E.SOMERSET
Posts: 6,815
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
I use a stofen diffuser and have just found them cheaper at 7 day shop
£5 less than warehouse express
__________________
You cannot maintain an ecology, if you lose any of the pieces. |
24-02-2007, 10:00 PM
| | Officer of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 512
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by glsammy Yep, they can be used with most lenses, especially good with Macro lenses. As they simply fit between the camera and lens, all you need to do is get the right set to suite your camera. The Jessop set I got cost around £75.
As for that image, I was VERY close! almost touching the creatures! You can still get excellent eye detail without the extensions, here's one of Steves, just using the lens at the 1:1 ratio:
Impressive eh? |
It certainly is! Can't wait for more insects to come on the scene so that I can put my macro to more use. Plenty of fungus around at the moment but can't even manage to find a slug to photograph, or a blue bottle and in this mild area we normally get those all year round. Oh well, roll on spring and summer. 
Kerry |
01-03-2007, 09:28 AM
| | Active Member | | Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25
| | | Re: 105 v 150 macro
Quote:
Originally Posted by glsammy As for that image, I was VERY close! almost touching the creatures! You can still get excellent eye detail without the extensions, here's one of Steves, just using the lens at the 1:1 ratio:
Impressive eh? | very nice, did you use a ring flash for that? or the normal on camera flash? i have a Tamron 90mm 2.8 on my D80, if i get that close to something i normally end up with a shadow cast from the front of the lens. | |
