Macro Lens For D200
Discussion
Been meaning to get a Macro lens for a while, having never owned a proper one.
Anyway I have been looking at four mainly
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
The Sigma 105mm is winning me over so far, I would love the Nikon 105mm but im wanting to purchase a Nikon R1 twin flash kit as well so id like to keep the cost down.
Anyone got experience of any of them?
Anyway I have been looking at four mainly
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
The Sigma 105mm is winning me over so far, I would love the Nikon 105mm but im wanting to purchase a Nikon R1 twin flash kit as well so id like to keep the cost down.
Anyone got experience of any of them?
I've got the Canon version of the Sigma 105mm. Optically, I think it's very good. Most of the reviews on the web seem to say it's as good or almost as good as Nikon's and Canon's own equivalent lenses.
The autofocus speed is very poor though. This doesn't matter for macro as I always manual focus anyway, but it's pretty useless for autofocussing on moving subjects. Assuming the Nikon mount lens has the same autofocus system, I'd steer away from it if you want to use it as a normal lens as well. As a macro lens it's great though.
Finally, if you're willing to spend £500+ for the Nikon lens, consider the Sigma 150mm too. This would be my choice, mainly for the extra working distance it gives you: especially useful for photographing insects.
The autofocus speed is very poor though. This doesn't matter for macro as I always manual focus anyway, but it's pretty useless for autofocussing on moving subjects. Assuming the Nikon mount lens has the same autofocus system, I'd steer away from it if you want to use it as a normal lens as well. As a macro lens it's great though.
Finally, if you're willing to spend £500+ for the Nikon lens, consider the Sigma 150mm too. This would be my choice, mainly for the extra working distance it gives you: especially useful for photographing insects.
SamHH said:
I've got the Canon version of the Sigma 105mm. Optically, I think it's very good. Most of the reviews on the web seem to say it's as good or almost as good as Nikon's and Canon's own equivalent lenses.
The autofocus speed is very poor though. This doesn't matter for macro as I always manual focus anyway, but it's pretty useless for autofocussing on moving subjects. Assuming the Nikon mount lens has the same autofocus system, I'd steer away from it if you want to use it as a normal lens as well. As a macro lens it's great though.
Finally, if you're willing to spend £500+ for the Nikon lens, consider the Sigma 150mm too. This would be my choice, mainly for the extra working distance it gives you: especially useful for photographing insects.
I wouldnt be using it as a normal lens, just for macro stuff.The autofocus speed is very poor though. This doesn't matter for macro as I always manual focus anyway, but it's pretty useless for autofocussing on moving subjects. Assuming the Nikon mount lens has the same autofocus system, I'd steer away from it if you want to use it as a normal lens as well. As a macro lens it's great though.
Finally, if you're willing to spend £500+ for the Nikon lens, consider the Sigma 150mm too. This would be my choice, mainly for the extra working distance it gives you: especially useful for photographing insects.
I have two Sigma lenses already and find them very good, so I reckon ill more than likely go for the Sigma 105mm.
From what I've read you can't really go wrong with any macro lens- they all seem very good. I own the Sigma 105mm and 150mm. The later is a very heavy beast and i'd say was tripod only. The 105mm you could possibly manage without a tripod, depending on what DOF you were after and available light. Another advantage of the 105mm is that it's relatively small and lightweight so could potentially always be in your kit bag. I think both the Sigma lenses are in their EX range so the build quality is excellent. I don't personally think you're getting anything more paying up for the Nikon equivalent. In most other lenses- zooms, primes, etc then the 3rd party lenses are usually inferior in some way but much cheaper. With the macros i think you get the cost saving with little or no drawbacks.
Simpo Two said:
I have the Nikon 105mm (previous version without VR) and have no complaints at all. I obtained it second hand from the forum's resident scuba-diving expert, and it's almost dried out inside now.. 
Would you consider a mint s/h lens?
Got no problems with buying S/h stuff, most of my gear is second hand and ive never had any problems.Would you consider a mint s/h lens?
Insects would be what I am mainly after with this, thats why I am leaning towards the 105mm as opposed to the 60mm
- that would be just georgeous for use on insects (I sometimes mate a TC to the 105 (AF-S VR version) successfully)
ian in lancs said:
I have the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 and a D80 and now a D300. Its a fantastic lens and has a permanent place in the kit bag! I also use it for portraits - perfect. Lovely colours and really sharp.
What he said, although I use mine on a D50. The only issue I find is that for insect macro stuff you have to get very close and flies are usually long gone by the time I get as close as I'd like. For static stuff it's brilliant though.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff