I have a new D7000 and want to take up macro to get re-energized. Which of these two lenses would you buy and why? Also would you get the Kenko extension tube kit with it? I figure I will be shooting flowers, butterflies and insects.
Posted by Bill Chambers on March 12, 2011 at 9:46 PM
Please keep in mind I'm not a macro user, but I have been studying it for the last few months deciding which macro lens I want to purchase. From what I've gathered from studying and talking to others, the 105 from either source might be a little on the short side for critters and insects, Most people seem to recommend the Sigma 150 f/2.8 or Sigma 180.
Other than that, what is the price difference between the Nikkor and Sigma? In my searches, it seems that ALL Nikkor, Sigma, and Tamron macros have been praised for their sharpness and contrast, with a slight edge in contrast perhaps going to the Nikkor. I certainly wouldn't be afraid of buying a used lens; I've purchased several and as long as you get it from reputable source I think you would be fine.
Again, all opinions from a NON macro user.
Posted by Richard Ditch on March 12, 2011 at 10:23 PM
IMO you are over analyzing this way too much. You are stuck in Analysis Paralysis. Just buy a lens and start using it!
I'd buy the used Nikkor.
Posted by Vincent Nobel on March 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM
I'd buy the used Nikkor 105. I've been using a used 60mm Nikkor for 4 years and it performs great. The reviews on the older Nikkor 105d are excellent. Also consider the Sigma 150mm to get close to insects without disturbing them. I use the Sigma 150mm and love the extra working distance. I also have the single Kenko 25mm tube and find it adequate for my needs. Good luck with the new lens! - Vince
Posted by Dan Roberts on March 13, 2011 at 12:27 AM
I've got a Nikkor 105 2.8 micro VR and the Sigma 105. The Sigma never comes out of the box. The 105 is supposed to be one of Sigma's better lenses but you just can't beat the Nikon glass.
I just upgraded from the older 105/2.8D Nikkor, which I've used for so many years as one of my favs for flowers. It's a little slow to focus, but everything else about it is stellar. If you want to shoot butterflies and bugs with it, it may fall short on focusing speed. The new one with VR is nice and speedy and just as good in every other way for sharpness, clarity, etc.
For the rare bug shots I do, I use a 70-200/2.8 or 300/2.8 with extension tubes.
Yes, I would definitely get the Kenko kit of extension tubes. Offers more options for working space, comps, etc.
If you have physical access to both lenses, it'd be worth it to try them on your camera so you see first hand how the focusing speed is for you. A lot of people use the Sigmas and get really great photos, too.
Don't rush. For the money you're about to spend, get the lens that suits you best. Good luck, and have a great time.
From the above comments it is obvious that both lenses return good quality. I use a SIGMA 150mm Macro and get excellent results. Also the working distance helps a lot for jittery creatures.
As an experienced macro photographer I`d venture 2 important aspects for you to make decisions about should be working distance and DOF.
The closer you get the less DOF you will have. Using extension tubes will also narrow the DOF. DOF is also very much a personal preference as some photographers will take 5 or more photo`s of the same subject to fabricate a greater DOF. I abhor this practice but then that is just me
Greater working distance and faster lens (more aperture to play with) will give greater DOF if that is you preference.
Hope that this helped.
Posted by Basil Greber on March 13, 2011 at 7:00 AM
I'm with Richard here. Just get one of those lenses you've asked about, they're all great. Shooting is much more fun than worrying about your lens choice. That said, I've owned the 105/2.8 AF-D, and for macro, it's excellent. I can recommend it.
Posted by Anne K. Rusk on March 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM
I have the sigma 105 and LOVE it. I use it constantly and it never let's me down. As the others have stated, your working distance can be a factor to consider if creatures are a high priority, but the extension tubes on a tele would work. Happy shooting!
Ok then, let me also mention that I already have the Nikkor 80/400vr, the Nikkor 12-24 and a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter. So from your comments, I can use the extension tubes on the 80/400 and stay farther away so as not to scare away subjects (or do you think that adding the extension tubes to a 5.6 aperture) will not produce the results I need unless sunny conditions AND I could use the 105 (either one) (both of which are $500) for the closer stuff?
Posted by Glenn Starr on March 13, 2011 at 1:04 PM
I think you'll find that the 1.4 teleconverter on your 80-400 lens will signifcantly affect image quality (sharpness and contrast). The only Nikon zoom I've seen that is little impacted by a TC is the 70-200 f2.8, VR I or II. If you really want to do macro then get a macro lens. You can get the Sigma 150 2.8, non-image stabilized, for just a few 100 more than the other lenses you are looking at. I bought the newest Nikon 105 and then returned it a week later because of the working distance issues. Once I get past my software buying binge I will get the Sigma 150. When I invest in a lens I always keep in mind that I can own it for a lifetime and a few 100 bucks pales in that timeline. Conversely, everytime I have made a decision based solely on cost I end up regretting it and end up buying what I should have the first time around...But that's just me.
Don: This is a personal bias but I HATE using tubes on a zoom. Every time you change zoom settings you have to refocus as well. If you have AF engaged it makes it a bit less annoying but the tubes will also probably slow down the AF. >=))>
Posted by Basil Greber on March 13, 2011 at 3:10 PM
I use tubes (extension tubes, not a tele converter) on a 400/5.6 telephoto prime without issues. I've never used them on a zoom, though.
As for "if you really want to do macro then get a macro lens" - I'd say that depends a lot on the subject. For example, I use virtually only the telephoto + tubes combination for dragonflies. I use the 105 mm macro mostly for stuff that doesn't move (flowers, still life), and, to be honest, for convenience.
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM
I almost always buy a used lens when I have the option. It will maintain more of what I paid when I resell it. There has to be a savings from the price of new though. I'll add this thought, which seems to be inline with a comment by R. Ditch above. The more I learn about photography, the more I realize that which specific bit of gear I use really doesn't make that much difference. Generally speaking. Last winter I was using a Nikon D300 with state of art Nikon f2.8 zooms. This winter I'm mostly using a 4x5 field camera with a Petzval lens made by Derogy in 1872 shooting only b&w. I'm just as happy with the results from either system. Focus on your vision.
Well, I have the Nikon 105 and love it. I don't really think the extension tubes do you much good on it but the teleconverter will allow you to use it to get some of the bugs and things. You might be able to use the tubes on your 80-400. I use tubes on my 70-200 with very nice results.
Discussion
14 repliesOther than that, what is the price difference between the Nikkor and Sigma? In my searches, it seems that ALL Nikkor, Sigma, and Tamron macros have been praised for their sharpness and contrast, with a slight edge in contrast perhaps going to the Nikkor. I certainly wouldn't be afraid of buying a used lens; I've purchased several and as long as you get it from reputable source I think you would be fine.
Again, all opinions from a NON macro user.
I'd buy the used Nikkor.
For the rare bug shots I do, I use a 70-200/2.8 or 300/2.8 with extension tubes.
Yes, I would definitely get the Kenko kit of extension tubes. Offers more options for working space, comps, etc.
If you have physical access to both lenses, it'd be worth it to try them on your camera so you see first hand how the focusing speed is for you. A lot of people use the Sigmas and get really great photos, too.
Don't rush. For the money you're about to spend, get the lens that suits you best. Good luck, and have a great time.
From the above comments it is obvious that both lenses return good quality. I use a SIGMA 150mm Macro and get excellent results. Also the working distance helps a lot for jittery creatures.
As an experienced macro photographer I`d venture 2 important aspects for you to make decisions about should be working distance and DOF.
The closer you get the less DOF you will have. Using extension tubes will also narrow the DOF. DOF is also very much a personal preference as some photographers will take 5 or more photo`s of the same subject to fabricate a greater DOF. I abhor this practice but then that is just me
Greater working distance and faster lens (more aperture to play with) will give greater DOF if that is you preference.
Hope that this helped.
As for "if you really want to do macro then get a macro lens" - I'd say that depends a lot on the subject. For example, I use virtually only the telephoto + tubes combination for dragonflies. I use the 105 mm macro mostly for stuff that doesn't move (flowers, still life), and, to be honest, for convenience.
Kent in SD