105 v 150 macro

[jonhawkins]

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

[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.

[Fourwings]

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.

[Fourwings]

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!

[jonhawkins]

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

[Fourwings]

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

[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?

[jonhawkins]

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

[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.

[Boddie]

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?