Macro Lens, should I hold out for the 150mm?

NickRummy · Jul 22, 2009

Well after days of reading on the forum I'm now waiting to make the final decision and need a little persuasion. I'm still new to my D200 and have an extreme interest in macro photography. I've narrowed my choice down to either the Sigma 105mm or the Sigma 150mm which have a pretty significant price difference. I've seen some amazing photos taken with both but the 150mm obviously has some benefits.

I guess I'm just trying to justify paying the price of the 150mm over the 105mm. It looks like the 1.4x teleconverter added to each is a common thing with good results which is a nice option to have down the road. I guess this brings me to my questions and opinions.

Which would you go for? I could buy the 105mm now or wait a few weeks for the 150mm. If you have photos using either lens I would love to see them, especially if used on a D200!

I'm thinking about trying to find the 105mm online at a rental site to try it out before buying. My only issue is the 105mm can be had for such a great price it's almost not worth renting however if I'm not happy with the minimal focus range I might be kicking myself for not getting the 150mm?

NickRummy · Jul 22, 2009

Any particular reason why you went with the Nikon lens of the Sigma and why the 105 over the 150?

Mitch1640 · Jul 22, 2009

tokina makes a great 100 macro for 400 bucks i think.

kundalini · Jul 22, 2009

I went with the Nikkor 105, but several members here have the Sigma version and are quite happy with them. You can add on a 1.4TC for some extra reach if needed. Just keep in mind that the longer the lens, it becomes a little bit harder for handholding macro.

NateS · Jul 23, 2009

If you only have to wait a few weeks to save enough for the 150mm then definitely do that. When shooting tiny critters, the more working space the better.

NickRummy · Jul 23, 2009

I ALMOST snagged a Sigma 150mm macro lens last night on ebay but someone drove the bid up to high for me. :grumpy:

It was probably someone on this site too! haha It was at $406 with about 30 seconds to go and I was going to bid but it jumped to $513 with only a few seconds left and I passed.

JerryPH · Jul 23, 2009

If you are going to use the lens for more than just a macro (ie: a portrait lens), the 105 is the better choice. 150 on a cropped sensor is too long and really relegates it to pretty much macro only use.

It depends on you and what you shoot.

NickRummy · Jul 23, 2009

JerryPH said:
If you are going to use the lens for more than just a macro (ie: a portrait lens), the 105 is the better choice. 150 on a cropped sensor is too long and really relegates it to pretty much macro only use.

It depends on you and what you shoot.

Thanks for bringing that up. The only other lens I have is the 18-200 VR so I was thinking about using this as a portrait lens also occasionally. I'm starting to lean more towards the 105mm. I can always use a 1.4TC to get to around 150mm right? Does that also change the minimum focusing point? I think I read it changes the aperture to 3.5?

JerryPH · Jul 23, 2009

I have both a D200 and the Nikon 18-200 lens also... and this lens is a great general use lens, but I would not really call it a portrait quality lens.

sween · Jul 23, 2009

I have both a D200 and the Nikon 18-200 lens also... and this lens is a great general use lens, but I would not really call it a portrait quality lens.

Rack your 18-200 to about 135 or a bit less and go aperture priority. Then take it down to 4.5/5.6. THAT will make a perfectly fine portrait lens. The fairly wide open ap at that focal length will give you more than ample bokeh.

That being said, the Sigma 105 is probably the sharpest glass in my bag full of Nikkor glass, and mine is an eight to nine year old model, surely it has gotten even better over time.

JerryPH · Jul 23, 2009

sween said:
I have both a D200 and the Nikon 18-200 lens also... and this lens is a great general use lens, but I would not really call it a portrait quality lens.

Click to expand...

Rack your 18-200 to about 135 or a bit less and go aperture priority. Then take it down to 4.5/5.6. THAT will make a perfectly fine portrait lens. The fairly wide open ap at that focal length will give you more than ample bokeh.

I know my 18-200 very well, I know where it shines, and where is just simply is not that good.

Set the zoom anywhere between 120-150, set the aperture to F/13-16, and it is as sharp as the $2500 Nikkor 70-200! Unfortunately, the reality is that I cannot always shoot at F/13-16, due to current conditions or needs, nor desire to zoom to 120+ mm due to space constraints.

The 18-200 is the world's BEST walk-around lens, you cannot pry it away from me with a crowbar... but when best quality portraits are desired, sincerely, that is the LAST lens on my list.

NickRummy · Jul 24, 2009

Great info on the 18-200. I had a 28-200 and got rid of it to get a macro lens since I had the 18-200. I felt the 18-200 was a good all around for now. With this being said I think I'm going to hold out and try to get a Sigma 150mm. After thinking about it I only want it for macro and the 18-200 will hold me over on anything else for now. Then down the road I can look into a better portrait lens.

Thanks everyone for the input! Now the hunt begins :gun:

sween · Jul 24, 2009

... but when best quality portraits are desired, sincerely, that is the LAST lens on my list.

That's a rather extreme statement and I certainly can't buy into the sentiment. The LAST lens for portrait work? If one is THAT serious about portraiture, using a fixed focal-length Nikkor 135mm worth more than your D200 body would be in order. Last I looked, that glass runs around $1600(US).

the reality is that I cannot always shoot at F/13-16

My reality is that shooting quality portraits means working in a controlled environment, meaning that you're using a tripod, with which F13/F16 should never be a problem.

I doubt you'll find many shooters who'll make the claim that the 18-200 is "...just simply not that good" under any circumstance, unless you're demanding true 1:1 macro, which that Sigma under discussion provides beyond adequately.

Sorry, but I simply disagree. But, I guess, that's why these boards exist. Cheers!

(I should mention that I am a thirty year plus serious amateur who has ample experience shooting in 35mm and medium-format, and now has roughly five years of dSLR experience as well.)

kundalini · Jul 24, 2009

Jerry & sween, quit pissing against the wall to see who can reach a higher mark. The 18-200mm is off the table since the OP already has one. Concentrate your energies on the Sigma 105mm vs 150mm lens the OP is asking about.

I like the 105mm focal length myself, but I also attach a 1.7TC ocassionally for some additional stretch.

sween · Jul 24, 2009

kundalini said:
Jerry & sween, quit pissing against the wall to see who can reach a higher mark. .

I'll be happy to quit, right after you stand right in front of that wall. My stream is strong, my aim quite good.

A favor, please, and I have asked before - do not respond to any of my posts. In keeping with the pledge, I am being totally honest and respectful in saying that I really don't like your approach. I'm trying to be very polite here. Whatever your problems are, don't make them mine.