Macro lens opinion & some pics

[MissNarniee]

I'm still very new to photography

My Mum and her side of the family all would like to put some $ into a new lens for my bday in October! :D I'm thinking a macro would be what i would like next.
I have Nikon 5200 and currently looking at the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro lens.
Does anyone have this lens or could anyone please share their thoughts on it or what might suit better? Something decent, value for the $ (prefer to stay under/around $1,000 mark-ish)

Also these are my pics so far **request for CC on pics removed**
https://www.flickr.com/photos/131071205@N07/

[Mark L]

G'day Sharnee.
Why do you want that macro? Would a longer lens help you get into birds more?:)

I have no idea about the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro. If you don't get to many replies about that lens post again in Gear Talk ....... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/forumdisplay.php?120-Lenses. While it's been a bit quiet there some will help.:th3:

[ameerat42]

MissN.
I have moved your thread to the appropriate section. The "New to Photography" forum is for members with < 90 days membership to post pics
for CC.

I have also edited your thread title to remove the request for CC, as you posted a link to a whole album of pictures. We cannot possibly give
CC (ie, be constructive) on such a large amount of material.

Now, I will just say that although I do not have that particular lens, I have heard lots of good reports from people who do have it. I just missed
out (unfortunately) on getting one a couple of years ago. It is capable of 1:1 reproduction, and is useful (as I've heard) as a portrait lens and
short telephoto. Oh, and regarding macro work, it allows for some useful distance between front of lens and subject. Some shorter focal length lenses
that still do 1:1 tend to require the lens to be much closer to the subject. This can cause problems with lighting.

You might like to let us know what sort of macro work you are interested in.
Ta.
Am.

[ricktas]

I have the sigma 150mm macro, I used to have the tamron 90mm. The 150 gives you that extra length that you can stay away from bitey bugs etc that bit more. I use it for all my macro work, fungi, etc and I have used it as a pet portrait lens. Great for taking photos of people's dogs in the park etc.

I think the 105mm has a good reputation, but do not know anyone with one, so cannot comment on that lens specifically. But I would keep in mind the 150mm version, before you make your final choice.

[MissNarniee]

Thanks guys!

I love taking pics of birds but also love macro photography.. Ideally id like a zoom and a macro ;)
Was thinking ill save for the zoom myself and Mum & Family can do the macro for me hehe

I have heard the 105mm is good by a few people but i just wanted to get some more opinions as i am still very new and dont know much still.
Will have to do some review searching :)

[ameerat42]

Well, serious macro (which I don't do:o) is usually considered to be 1:1 or higher reproduction.
Some lenses "offer macro" that can get down to about 1:2, which means image size is HALF subject size.
Many telephotos and zoom lenses do this, though some only get to about 1:3. Some more specialised macro
lenses do 2:1, ie, image size is TWICE subject size.

Sounds to me you are after TWO different lenses, one each for macro and for birds. With some skill and practice,
and lens quality, f=400mm would suffice for a lot of bird photography. (This is from what I've seen here and elsewhere.)
I have a 50-500 that I use for my (poor) birding. This lens also gets down to 1:3 for "macro". It sort of "does" me, but
I would go and get a specialised macro lens if I wanted to get into macro. As it stands, this lens is good enough for my
odd close-up jobs.

In fact, depending on how far you want to go, be prepared to spend a bit on each of these lenses to (hope to) get
good image quality.

Others here who are more into each of these fields can advise further. Meantime, do some review reading, and, instead
of just believing what you read, run it past here occasionally.

Am.

[Cage]

I totally agree with Rick's comments about the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. I also have one, and can't speak highly enough about it. Sharp as a tack ! :th3:

As Rick said the length gives you the ability to get further away from the nasties.

Also consider that on your D5200 the focal length will be 225mm and if you add a 1.4 Teleconverter you will have a focal length of 315mm giving you a very sharp telephoto lens.

Check here for a review .... http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/304-sigma-af-150mm-f28-apo-ex-hsm-macro-dg-d-review--test-report

and here for a price .... http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=sigma+150mm+f2.8&spos=3

Ryda are an Australian company offering full manufacturer's warranty and are cheaper than the grey marketeers. I've bought quite a bit of gear from them and can recommend them.

I reckon you should have an early birthday this year. :party5: :efelant: :party6:

[arthurking83]

....

I have heard the 105mm is good by a few people but i just wanted to get some more opinions as i am still very new and dont know much still.
Will have to do some review searching :)

Been there done that!
Many years back, when I started looking for a good all round macro lens, it came down to two lenses.
The Nikon 105/2.8 VR and the Sigma 105/2.8
Back then, the Sigma didn't have OS(optical stabilisation), but the Nikon had VR.
Only for that reason did I go with the Nikon. Had the Sigma had OS back then, I'd have gone for that lens instead.
The Sigma is a better lens in all round IQ properties.
Also, back then the 150/2.8 Sigma didn't exist, and a few years after that I got a chance to play with an early version of that lens(without OS).

Once again, the Sigma 150/2.8 was a nicer lens overall than the Nikon. If the Nikon lens didn't have VR I'd have gone with the Sigmas.

Now that they all have optical stabilisation, the Sigma lenses are definitely the better lenses to go for.

As your family is doing the buying, and you don't want to put them under too much financial pressure .. the Sigma 105/2.8OS is ideal. Not too expensive and very high IQ(plus stabilisation when you need it)
If they don't mind the extra couple of hundred $s .. then the Sigma 150/2.8OS will be the better lens, but only that it will give you more distance to the subject to work with.
On the D5200, the 105mm will work better as a portrait lens(in that you don't have to stand as far back from your portrait subjects)

[MissNarniee]

Oh thank you for that guys!! Definitely helped :)
I'll either get that 105mm or maybe ill get them to give me the money towards a lens and i could save some money and go for the 150mm.. Hmm ill see what they say :D

[Cage]

I paid $630.00 for mine second hand and it included the 1.4 T/C. It was in immaculate condition.

[James42]

Hi Sharnee,
I have the Sigma 105mm lens and it has performed well. I think it represents good value when compared to the alternatives.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mary Anne]

I have four Macro Lenses they are all 1.1 Macro and I have been happy with them all over the years..

Up nice and close there is the 60mm *I don't recommend that* unless you are shooting with a m4/3 camera...

A lens between 90mm-105mm is perfect and the best size for shooting macro in my opinion with a DSLR.

Worried about getting stung or bitten try the 150mm, though nowhere near long enough for Birding

Oh and BTW I have never heard of a bad macro lens yet, and Best of Luck with whatever lens you choose :2smile:

[arthurking83]

....

Oh and BTW I have never heard of a bad macro lens yet .....

That's what happens when you live in the rarefied atmosphere of Canon L lenses! :p

Nikon's 105VR is close to that.
It can produce good images in some situations, but massive CA problems lets it down.
This is where the Sigma lenses(and Tamron 90 that I've also tried) looked appealing by comparion.
Not that they were that much sharper ... Sigma 150 is by a smidge, and the Tammy 90(old model) was about on par.
But in most situations the Nikon 105 shows large amounts of CA(mainly in the green range), whereas none of the other lenses do!

You can 'easily' get rid of CA in PP, with a click of a button, of course, but it's easier to not have to deal with it in the first place(especially at the levels that the Nikon lens creates it!)

[MissNarniee]

Thanks Arthur but what does "CA" stand for? hahahh newbie here ;)

[ameerat42]

Thanks Arthur but what does "CA" stand for? hahahh newbie here ;)

(:shh: I'm not Arthur, but) CA stands for Chromatic Aberration. It is an "aberration" in the refractive ability of a lens (not a flaw as such).
It shows up as red/green or magenta/cyan fringes around high-contrast parts of an image. Have a look at this article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration)
Am.

[MissNarniee]

Oooohhhh yep ive noticed that before!
Thankies Am. :)

[Glenda]

I have the Sigma 105 macro and am very pleased with it. I use it on a crop sensor Nikon D7100 and have used it successfully for sports shots as well as macro.