Nikon 85mm f/1.4G vs Sigma 85mm f/1.4

sleist · Feb 15, 2011

The 150 is just fantastic - very sharp as you say. You are tied to a tripod though unless you're shooting in direct sun (which you should be for macro). I see the revised 150 has VR, but I don't think that would help for pure macro use - only if you want to use it as a telephoto too. I prefer my Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR for that focal length (non macro) - much faster focus.

I was surprised at just how sharp the 30 was to be honest, and very fast focus compared to the nikon 35 1.8. Really a great street lens.

Overread · Feb 15, 2011

Direct sun is hard to work with in anything from macro to regular shooting - far far easier is to bring flash into the equation. Then you're not only able to shoot in any lighting, weak or strong, but also able to diffuse and control that lighting so that you can shoot with a nice soft light - not strong, harsh sunlight.

150mm is also a neat range to work easily with - a speedlite flash and softbox (something like the lumiquest softbox) and you're good to go with a decent lighting setup. You can get far more complicated, but its a good solid starting point with that range of lens in macro work .

sleist · Feb 15, 2011

Overread said:
Direct sun is hard to work with in anything from macro to regular shooting - far far easier is to bring flash into the equation.

I wrote it goofy, but I meant you should use the tripod for macro not direct sun.

My direct sun comment was more about using it for non macro purposes given that there's no VR. Your points were all valid regardless.

Heck · Feb 19, 2011

I seen the sig 85 get tested up and down and it seems some people can get a bad copy. But If you get a good one your golden as it is a great lens for the price. I pick up one for myself to be my first prime so I can't give you a expert point of view. AF accuracy seems hard to hit 100% but that I suspect is just me being so green with this type of lens. I love mine so far.