nikon vs sigma (lens quality)

DScience

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
122
Location
Denver, CO
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Hello everyone,

So I really would like to get a macro lens. I was looking at Nikon's 60mm and 105mm lenses. I think I would rather go with the 105, so that I can also use it as a telephoto lens if need be. However, the 105 nikon is around $900-$1000.

On the other hand, the sigma 105mm macro lens is about $500.

I am curious to know the differences in picture quality between these two lenses. Can anyone comment or explain the differences?

Also, am I correct in thinking that a macro lens such as the 105 can also be used as a telephoto lens, for landscape/nature shots?
 
The Sigma 105 is a good lens as well...but you should also maybe consider the Tamron 90mm f2.8. A little shorter, but the T90 is one of the sharpest lenses period.....as in few if any can top the sharpness from it.

Whether you get 105 or 90mm....either one isn't going to be long enough to do much wildlife shooting and both will be too long for most landscape shooting.

You could also look into a used Sigma 150mm f2.8. This would be my choice between all of the Macro's and would be long enough to do some decent telephoto work. Plus you can use it with TC's to get over 200mm if needed.

Edit: If you aren't in a big hurry, you could just keep your eye on ebay. I've seen quite a few mint condition Sigma 150mm f2.8's sell in the $500 range. I would have a Tamron 90mm in my bag right now if the Sigma 150 didn't tempt me so bad.
 
the sigma macro lenses are pretty good. as always, it comes down to build quality and glass quality. the nikkor will be a little sharper and produce colors a little better. also the nikon has VR.
 
Thanks for the info!

So for the 90mm Tamron, would you say this is 'sharper' than the 105mm Nikkor? Or sharper than the Sigma?

As far as the telephoto, I am just wondering if you can use it for longer range shots, or are macro lenses only made for shooting up close?
 
The Sigma 105 is a good lens as well...but you should also maybe consider the Tamron 90mm f2.8. A little shorter, but the T90 is one of the sharpest lenses period.....as in few if any can top the sharpness from it.

Whether you get 105 or 90mm....either one isn't going to be long enough to do much wildlife shooting and both will be too long for most landscape shooting.

You could also look into a used Sigma 150mm f2.8. This would be my choice between all of the Macro's and would be long enough to do some decent telephoto work. Plus you can use it with TC's to get over 200mm if needed.

Edit: If you aren't in a big hurry, you could just keep your eye on ebay. I've seen quite a few mint condition Sigma 150mm f2.8's sell in the $500 range. I would have a Tamron 90mm in my bag right now if the Sigma 150 didn't tempt me so bad.

Umm...I believe the Nikon 105 f/2.8 tops it.
 
In my research, the Nikkor 105 f/2.8 was pretty much a Gold Standard for macro and doubles as a wonderful portrait lens. The distance to subject is about 10" for 1:1 ratio, which means you won't scare off your bugs as likely than you will when trying to get in close with shorter focal lengths.. The bokeh is silky smooth. Yeah, it costs a bit more, but I suspect the value will last my lifetime.

Just my 2¢.
 
I have been like you, looking for great macro's but they are not made any more, You should get a tokina 90mm 2.5 or like me get better, the vivitar series 1 VMC 90mm 2.5

it is the fastest and best built, the lens is superior. If you want, i have some samples up and you may feel free to check them out.

P a v e L Shpak - My Blogies

Sigma i like the 50-150mm 2.8, very nice
 
The quality difference (if anyone could even tell - and I bet they couldn't for all practical purposes) is not reflected in the price difference between the Sigma and the Nikon. I got my Sigma for 250 used. Versus whatever the hell they are selling vanilla and VR 105's at these days.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top