Sigma 180mm F2.8 OS Macro lens - $1700

[Markw]

Sigma announces pricing and availability for 180mm f/2.8 macro lens | Photo Rumors

Well, I've been long waiting for the announcement for the price of this lens. It's a dream macro lens, and would pair nicely as a nice portrait/telephoto lens as well. Beautiful. And it's quite sexy to look at, if I do say so. But, the $1700 is a bit of a punch to the stomach.

What are your opinions?

Do you think this will put the sticks to Nikon/Canon to come up with a competitor? If so, it will be hard to justify the price tag on those two. With OS, HSM, and an F/2.8 aperture, I would choose this lens over the Nikon 200/4 any day.

Mark

 

[cgipson1]

Sigma announces pricing and availability for 180mm f/2.8 macro lens | Photo Rumors

Well, I've been long waiting for the announcement for the price of this lens. It's a dream macro lens, and would pair nicely as a nice portrait/telephoto lens as well. Beautiful. And it's quite sexy to look at, if I do say so. But, the $1700 is a bit of a punch to the stomach.

What are your opinions?

Do you think this will put the sticks to Nikon/Canon to come up with a competitor? If so, it will be hard to justify the price tag on those two..

Mark

It had better be a DAMN GOOD lens for that money... I have seen very few third party lenses I would pay that for. I think they are delusional....

That sucks.. I too, was waiting to see what this one would do!

Looks like I might look at picking up one of the older 180's... was waiting to see...

 

[Markw]

The Nikon 200mm F/4.0 Macro is almost the same price. At F/4, and with no VR or AF-s. I would have loved to see this lens come out with a $999 price tag. It would have been flying off the shelves.

Mark

 

[KmH]

Because of the way optics work at Macro focus distances, VR and auto focus are pretty much useless.

 

[Markw]

Because of the way optics work at Macro focus distances, VR and auto focus are pretty much useless.

I agree with VR. But, that will come in handy when using it as a 180/2.8 telephoto.

The HSM, however, I use all the time at macro distances. It's quite nice to just hit it to get a quick ballpark focus, and fine-tune from there. Saves quite a bit of time, and hand movement that can easily scare off skittish critters.

Mark

 

[sovietdoc]

What are your opinions?

Preordered mine as soon as BH had it available. I need a macro lens and from what reckon, Sigma makes one of the best.

A few valid points to bring up though:

1. f/2.8 - wtf what's the point of this on a macro lens? You're always going to be shooting at f/11 or smaller, not I am no pro in macro but I'm just confused by this
2. Price - at 1700 for a off-brand lens, this is pretty damn expensive. Of course we are all hoping that it will be stellar for the price, but really, how many Sigma lenses have the worlds best rank in their respected category, beating equivalent Canon and Nikon?

I don't know about you folks, but for me VR/IS/OS is important. Shooting 1:1 handheld at 180mm is difficult as it is and I can't be carrying my tripod everywhere. Moreover, it's not even carrying the tripod around that is the problem, it's being able to set it down in a particular place of shooting. And sometimes you need to take the insect's photo quick, for that there is just no time to do it with a tripod.

HSM is nice to have but I've never seen a "fast" macro lens over 100-105mm

 

[o hey tyler]

Sigma announces pricing and availability for 180mm f/2.8 macro lens | Photo Rumors

Well, I've been long waiting for the announcement for the price of this lens. It's a dream macro lens, and would pair nicely as a nice portrait/telephoto lens as well. Beautiful. And it's quite sexy to look at, if I do say so. But, the $1700 is a bit of a punch to the stomach.

What are your opinions?

Do you think this will put the sticks to Nikon/Canon to come up with a competitor? If so, it will be hard to justify the price tag on those two..

Mark

It had better be a DAMN GOOD lens for that money... I have seen very few third party lenses I would pay that for. I think they are delusional....

That sucks.. I too, was waiting to see what this one would do!

Looks like I might look at picking up one of the older 180's... was waiting to see...

~$1k for the Sigma 85mm/1.4 was worth it for me over the Canon 85/1.8 or Canon 85/1.2.

 

[Derrel]

I seriously,seriously,seriously doubt that Sigma has the stones (or the brains) to make a macro lens that can even equal the 200mm f/4 Micro~Nikkor. Seriously. Just. Don't. See. Sigma. Being. Able. To. Beat. The. Macro. Leader.

I have the older Sigma 180mm EX series f/3.5 APO HSM Macro....it's a pretty decent lens...except for its annoying propensity (much worse than a tendency...) to suddenly go on WILD, 50-meter backfocusing excursions at the MOST-inopportune times...not to mention that annoying yellow cast that Sigma lenses are plagued with...and no, it can NOT be "white-balanced out". So...that's my opinion on it...Sigma sees a place where the acknowledged leaders' products cost much more money, and they have an offering that is an alternative. I would not consider it a substitute though; the 200/4 Micro-Nikkor is is a class by itself.

$1700 for a new Sigma prime? Ouch! Sorry, but NO....it's a Sigma...that means it'll be available on the used market in six months for 30 percent less than current retail, and in two years, it'll be worth $600. Buy the Nikkor today, shoot it for ten years, and then SELL IT for $300 more than you payed for it.

 

[o hey tyler]

What are your opinions?

1. f/2.8 - wtf what's the point of this on a macro lens? You're always going to be shooting at f/11 or smaller, not I am no pro in macro but I'm just confused by this

Gee, I don't know. It's not like there have been any f/2.8 macro lenses before, I only listed eight of them. They should just be made for f/11 and smaller just to minimize time in stopping down your aperture, right?

Amazon.com: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Amazon.com: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM 1-to-1 Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics

Amazon.com: Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens: Electronics

Amazon.com: Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D Macro Lens for Canon EOS Digital and Film Cameras: Electronics

Amazon.com: Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics

Amazon.com: Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens for Canon SLR Camera: Electronics

Amazon.com: Sony 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Camera: Electronics

Amazon.com: Pentax 100mm f/2.8 WR D FA smc Macro Lens for Pentax Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics

 

[Kerbouchard]

Admitedly, I don't really follow Macro Lenses anymore since I have the Sigma 150 2.8, which is an absolute jewel of a lens, but I'm a bit curious why Sigma decided to make a lens so close to the 150 2.8 OS that they already have.

Maybe since the development has mostly been done already with the 150, it was easy for them, but from a marketing standpoint, I just don't see what this offers that the 150 doesn't at a much lower price.

 

[sovietdoc]

Tyler, EVERY single lens you've posted there are what focal length? That's right. 90 to 105mm you know why? Because they're not long telephoto, they're considered "macro" and "general use" like for portraits and such. For short focal length it makes sense to make it 2.8 because you'll also be able to use it for things other than extreme closeup 1:1 macro shots, which can't be said about a lens that is almost 200mm. Try going around with 180mm as "general use" lens...

180mm macro is VERY specialized. Maybe not as much as lenses like MP-E 65mm but still. Now, why would a very specialized macro lens of telephoto focal length get f/2.8 considering it will never be used at anything that big, I am not sure.

 

[Derrel]

180mm f/2.8 with stabilizer for $1700. A re-worked macro lens design that's barely longer than their cheaper,proven 150mm lens models. What is the size and weight of this lens? I have seen a few pics of it on-line....IMMSMC it is "big". And inelegant-looking. Obnoxious-looking. Probably somewhat heavy. I've shot multiple 180mm lenses, spanning decades: Nikon's 180/2.8; Nikon's 180 2.8 ED-glass AI-s; Tamron's 180mm f/2.5 SP; and two different Nikkor 180 AF models, the AF, and AF-D,plus my Sigma 180 f/3.,5 EX APO. Out of all of those, the Nikkor AF models are the smallest and lightest and least-obtrusive lenses...they're actually"decent" with a either a 12mm or 20mm extension tube added. I have a real knowledge of what a 180 field telephoto is like to carry,shoot,and own and I think the newer 70-200/2.8 Nikkor models and Canon models are just better "tools", as all-around lenses; Why? They have VR/IS, AND they have resale, and they have focal length flexibility.

The way I see it, the new Sigma 180mm macro is aimed right at the Canon 180 EF crowd. But...that's the marketing...the actual "uses for" a specific lens, and the needs of various end-users are what really counts. I guess my question is--what advantage would it give you over say the 150 or their 150 OS models? NOT MUCH advantage, really. Bigger, heavier, still that warm, Sigma yellow color rendering that is soooooooooo much warmer than Nikkor lenses....just going by what I recall, their new 180/2.8 OS will give you a lens that is bigger than a 70-200/2.8, with ZERO focal length flexibility, poor resale value, and zero track record either in reliability, or in used market resale value. Not.Looking.So.Hot.To.Me.

Case in point: the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 at $999; Nikon's brand new 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor is a better lens,for half as much cash outlay, when shot on a high-resolution body like the Nikon D800. In fact, their new 85mm "intermediate" priced lens is under $500, with a FIVE-YEAR USA warranty, and is one of the absolute best-performing lenses of ALL lenses that the hard-core D800 upper-echelon testers have tested out on the new 36MP sensor that YOU shoot on. So...the question really is, "What do you think this new Sigma will 'actually' bring to the table as a true benefit for you?"

I honestly can not see any real, significant advantages it has over a Sigma 150mm, and I can tick off a bunch of negatives. Either way...I always buy a Sigma used...I let some other guy take the 50% depreciation.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Tyler, EVERY single lens you've posted there are what focal length? That's right. 90 to 105mm you know why? Because they're not long telephoto, they're considered "macro" and "general use" like for portraits and such. For short focal length it makes sense to make it 2.8 because you'll also be able to use it for things other than extreme closeup 1:1 macro shots, which can't be said about a lens that is almost 200mm. Try going around with 180mm as "general use" lens...

180mm macro is VERY specialized. Maybe not as much as lenses like MP-E 65mm but still. Now, why would a very specialized macro lens of telephoto focal length get f/2.8 considering it will never be used at anything that big, I am not sure.

I had used my Sigma 150 2.8 Macro at 2.8 fairly often for portraits. Now that I have the 120-300 2.8, I prefer it, but for a time, it was one of my goto lenses for outdoor portraits.

 

[sovietdoc]

One very good point to bring is that this lens will probably be sellin' at 50% of its value in a year or two because it's Sigma.

 

[sovietdoc]

Tyler, EVERY single lens you've posted there are what focal length? That's right. 90 to 105mm you know why? Because they're not long telephoto, they're considered "macro" and "general use" like for portraits and such. For short focal length it makes sense to make it 2.8 because you'll also be able to use it for things other than extreme closeup 1:1 macro shots, which can't be said about a lens that is almost 200mm. Try going around with 180mm as "general use" lens...

180mm macro is VERY specialized. Maybe not as much as lenses like MP-E 65mm but still. Now, why would a very specialized macro lens of telephoto focal length get f/2.8 considering it will never be used at anything that big, I am not sure.

I had used my Sigma 150 2.8 Macro at 2.8 fairly often for portraits. Now that I have the 120-300 2.8, I prefer it, but for a time, it was one of my goto lenses for outdoor portraits.

So what's your point, I am not arguing about 150mm, I am arguing about 180