180/3.5 Macro vs 80-200/2.8 with 2x TC?

[Markw]

Hi all. I will be getting a 180mm/3.5 macro lens soon in lieu of my 105/2.8. I am in need of some extra reach and I think the 180 will do the trick. I still havent decided on Sigma vs Tamron. I guess Ill decide that after I decide what Im going to use it for. I will, of course, use it for all of my macro work, but I would also like to use it as a long telephoto prime. I won't be using it for anything fast moving like planes or anything like that. But I have seen amazing samples with macro lenses and 2x teleconverters. My macro lens is superbly sharp, as with most macro lenses. I would reckon that it's probably sharper than my 80-200/2.8D. This made me wonder: "hmmmm....how would this work for birding if I put a 2.0x TC on it?". I brought my 105/2.8 out birding the other day. I only had room for one lens, and I wanted to concentrate on macro. It worked well for both macro and birding because I didnt have to worry too much about minimum focusing distances.

All that being said, I suppose the question is: do you think it would be a sharper combo with a 180/3.5 w/2.0x TC or 80-200/2.8D w/2.0x TC? I am looking for a supertelephoto, but I cannot afford to spend $1k on one at the moment ontop of upgrading my macro. I would love to hear that the 180/3.5 and 2.0x TC will work well.

After all this mumbling and such, I will clarify anything that isnt clear. Just let me know. :mrgreen:

Mark

 

[rhino123]

Basically you must really understand what you want to shoot first. If macro is your primary business, than get a dedicated macro lens. Nothing would be better in macro than a macro lens. Thus 180mm macro lens is among the best you can get.

Sure you can add a x2 TC to it, but you would lost 2 stops and I seriously would not recommend it because it will certainly decrease the image quality. if you really want a TC on your macro lens, you can consider a 1.4x TC which will cause you to lost 1 stop of light.

Either way, if you want to go birding, I seriously doubt your 180mm will be enough... even with your TC, and as for sharpness, I don't think your 80-200 with a 2x TC will give be of much help too.

I have a 300mm f4, with a 1.4x TC, giving me an effective focal length of 420mm (not inclusive of the crop factor) and even then, I sometime find it inadequate... and as many nature photographers out there would tell you, you might need a 500mm for decent bird shooting.

 

[Overread]

Mark I don't know of the major reason but I know a lot of very happy sigma 180mm macro lens shooters - and I know of 2 tamron 180mm macro lens shooters. That in itself tells me that the sigma is offering something more than the tamron (might be teleconverter compatibility - better build quality etc... I'm not sure). Suffice to say of the two I would go with the Sigma without a second thought.

With a 2*TC your major downside is losing 2 stops of light on an f3.5 lens. Now far as I know nikon don't have any af limiter based on aperture, but after f5.6 max aperture (on anything but top series camera bodies) reliability and speed of AF can slow (even if you use the limiter switches on the macro lens).
The other problem is that macro lenses have very inprecise control over longer focusing distances. You can see this yourself in almost any macro lens; the close up distances have very fine control over the focus - whilst at the long end a tiny shift in the focus wheel can give a big shift in the focus itself. This can make long distance photography with the lens a little harder and far more reliant on a good AF lock on the subject.

Considering all this have you thought of considering the sigma 150mm macro? That would give you a 300mm f5.6 lens with the 2*TC which might be all the advantage for that half stop of extra light at the max aperture.

 

[Derrel]

I own the Sigma 180/3.5 EX-HSM Macro...it's pretty good optically. The Tamron 180 appears to me to have creamier, smoother bokeh at distance, making it perhaps a better lens for "people" work...the Tamron is much newer than the Sigma, so there's been a lot more time for the Sigma to penetrate the market.

My gut feeling is that the Sigma 180/3.5 with a 2x converter will out-perform an 80-200-D with a 2x on it...the issue is however, the actual fit of a converter onto one or both of those lenses...not just any TC will mount to those lenses...in fact,quite a few converters will NOT mount...

Overread echos a point I often make: macro lenses have very imprecise control over longer focusing distances. The Sigma 180/3.5 is no exception...it has hair-trigger focusing past a couple meters distance.

 

[Markw]

Basically you must really understand what you want to shoot first. If macro is your primary business, than get a dedicated macro lens. Nothing would be better in macro than a macro lens. Thus 180mm macro lens is among the best you can get.
I already own the Sigma 105/2.8 and 50/2.8 macro lenses. I am currently selling the 50/2.8 and the Sigma 105/2.8 is probably my most used lens. This is why I was considering upgrading my Macro lens before buying a super telephoto.

Sure you can add a x2 TC to it, but you would lost 2 stops and I seriously would not recommend it because it will certainly decrease the image quality. if you really want a TC on your macro lens, you can consider a 1.4x TC which will cause you to lost 1 stop of light.
This is why I asked..I know that Macro lenses are among the sharpest around. This led me to believe that they would maintain that superior sharpness (albiet some loss, but not as noticeable as with a zoom) with a TC. I understand the stops lost.

Either way, if you want to go birding, I seriously doubt your 180mm will be enough... even with your TC, and as for sharpness, I don't think your 80-200 with a 2x TC will give be of much help too.
Where I live, the birds are VERY accustomed to humans. They will, and often do, land within a few feet or yards of you. Many different species.

I guess I should have mentioned that. But this is why I was considering a Macro lens with a TC instead of a 300+mm prime/zoom. The macro will not limit me to the MFD of the long prime lens. This could lead to some spectacular profile shots of the birds, and still allowing me to switch to full macro in one quick motion.

Mark I don't know of the major reason but I know a lot of very happy sigma 180mm macro lens shooters - and I know of 2 tamron 180mm macro lens shooters. That in itself tells me that the sigma is offering something more than the tamron (might be teleconverter compatibility - better build quality etc... I'm not sure). Suffice to say of the two I would go with the Sigma without a second thought.
My thoughts exactly. I have heard that the Sigma has better AF, while the Tamron has Slightly better image quality..something almost undetectable in the world of macro, I suppose.

With a 2*TC your major downside is losing 2 stops of light on an f3.5 lens. Now far as I know nikon don't have any af limiter based on aperture, but after f5.6 max aperture (on anything but top series camera bodies) reliability and speed of AF can slow (even if you use the limiter switches on the macro lens).
This is my fear. If it ends up being too big of an issue, I will use the TC only for the true macro work and make due with what I can with the 180mm of the lens. My other longest lens is 200mm, so not much to lose.

The other problem is that macro lenses have very inprecise control over longer focusing distances. You can see this yourself in almost any macro lens; the close up distances have very fine control over the focus - whilst at the long end a tiny shift in the focus wheel can give a big shift in the focus itself. This can make long distance photography with the lens a little harder and far more reliant on a good AF lock on the subject.
Hmm...I didnt think about this. Nice call.

Considering all this have you thought of considering the sigma 150mm macro? That would give you a 300mm f5.6 lens with the 2*TC which might be all the advantage for that half stop of extra light at the max aperture.
I have thought about this. The $499 used price tag on the 180 with the extra reach is what was making me lean toward the 180mm. I would love to have the 2.8..but I can't find them used for under $650 anywhere..unless Im missing something.

My gut feeling is that the Sigma 180/3.5 with a 2x converter will out-perform an 80-200-D with a 2x on it...the issue is however, the actual fit of a converter onto one or both of those lenses...not just any TC will mount to those lenses...in fact,quite a few converters will NOT mount...
I was thinking about the Sigma EX APO 2x TC. This will fit. I havent yet looked to see if the Kenko will mount..but I will look into it.

Thank you all for your posts. My response is in red. Feel free to respond further, I love hearing from you. :mrgreen:

Mark

 

[rhino123]

What I am more leaning toward is that you can consider a 1.4x TC. That way you don't lose too much image quality.

I have a Kenko 2x and a kenko 1.4x TC which I use on my 100mm macro and 300mm tele lens. And so far the 2x TC produce very bad image quality pics, while the 1.4x TC produce much better and sharper pic.

I know there is a great reduction in range, but if image quality is what you are going after, then maybe you should consider the 1.4x TC.

One more thing, for 2x TC, some of the lens loses their AF, or only the center AF is usable, but that is valid for my Canon camera, I am not sure about Nikon's one and also not sure if the 180mm macro lens will have this issue, it would be better for your to check this up before investing into lens and TC.

 

[Markw]

I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate the advice. I know this would be completely unrealistic to try to do handheld or with AF, but here is a shot taken with a 2.0x and 1.4x TC stacked on the 180/3.5. All sizes | Paardenbijter - Dragonfly - Aeschna mixta - detail series 2-4 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
The photo looks quite good, even with both TCs.

Mark

 

[Overread]

That is better detail than I would expect - but its also only 600odd pixels large which can hide a lot of fullsize softness

 

[Markw]

That's true too.

About the AF. Is the not AF working due to the mechanics of the TC or because there's not enough light going into the camera? If it is an issue with light going into the camera, I didnt have a problem with my Sigma 400/5.6 AF on my D300s while I had it..

Mark

 

[Overread]

Canon camera bodies outside of the 1D line (and the 7D when in live view mode only) automatically won't allow AF if the lenses detected minimum aperture is less than f5.6. Far as I know Nikon don't have that funcationality, but it remains true for both systems that AF performance after that point takes a significant drop even in good light.

 

[Markw]

The question I guess Im asking is..will this lens with a 2x TC effectively be a 360mm f/5.6 Macro lens? This would mean the lens would have the same focus accuracy as any other F/5.6 prime then, right? Or even slightly better because of the HSM?

Mark

 

[Overread]

HSM can mean ultra fast, but it mostly just means ultra quiet. For example in my 150mm macro the AF speed even without a TC is noticeably slower than my 70-200mm lens. With a TC it slows down even more so don't kid yourself that the AF speed will be fast even with the limiter switches.

 

[Markw]

Oh I didnt expact fast by any means. I already have the 105/2.8..and that doesnt even have HSM. I know all too well about slow AF with macro . That being said, though, the AF isnt too quick..but its not too slow for me either. The AF on my Sigma 400/5.6 non-HSM non-Macro lens wasnt too slow for me either. I faired okay with that one as well. I dont know if this is a good comparison, but if the AF would be equivalent, I dont think it's too bad.

Ive found a 180/3.5 locally for $460 with both caps, hood, etc. Fairly good deal, eh?

Mark

 

[rhino123]

Oh I didnt expact fast by any means. I already have the 105/2.8..and that doesnt even have HSM. I know all too well about slow AF with macro . That being said, though, the AF isnt too quick..but its not too slow for me either. The AF on my Sigma 400/5.6 non-HSM non-Macro lens wasnt too slow for me either. I faired okay with that one as well. I dont know if this is a good comparison, but if the AF would be equivalent, I dont think it's too bad.

Ive found a 180/3.5 locally for $460 with both caps, hood, etc. Fairly good deal, eh?

Mark

For $460, that is not a bad deal at all.

Oh... one more thing that is quite important for me, not sure about you, you might want to check if the Sigma 180mm had an option for FTM. It is pretty important for me when I am taking macro photo.

I wouldn't be too worried about the AF speed unless you are taking pics of really nervous critters or insects that move quite alot.

 

[Markw]

If the lens itself doesnt have Full Time Manual (I suppose that's what FTM means?) Focus, I could switch the switch on the body to turn off AF. But I honestly can't see a dedicated macro lens not having a MF function..

Thanks,
Mark