Macro: Sigma 150 f.2.8 versus Nikon 105 f.2.8 VR

[bombycilla]

An interesting dilemma for me ! I am using a D300 and want a good lens for macro dragonfly photography. I have the Nikon 1.4 TC II and also a Kenko Pro300 1.4 TC.

So, I can use the Nikon without and with the Nikon TC at 147mm with loss of a stop or I can go for the Sigma and the Kenko should work for any extra reach required, giving a nice 210mm. I understand that 105mm is generally a bit 'short' for spooky 'flies. Is the VR on the 105 a worthy consideration to discount the Sigma ? I have only heard and read good things about the Sigma and am leaning that way if I am totally honest, and feel I can work easily with 150mm without a TC in many situations. It has gone up a bit in price recently but I do quite a bit of dragon stuff from May to Oct so can definitely justify it !

Would appreciate the comments and experiences of anyone using these lenses and combinations for dragonflies ( or other insects). I understand there will be partisans on both sides but I am interested in all comments.

Cheers,

Bob

[Duke Leto]

I'm no macro expert but I assume that normally you wouldn't shoot wide open as there will be very little dof, so the loss of a stop shouldn't be a show stopper (no pun intended).
Also if you mod the Nikon TC which is a very simple mod, you would only need to carry one, the Nikon will be superior to the Kenko but not sure if it would be visible.

[Helios]

I've heard somewhere that the Nikon's VR doesn't apply to macro photography itself, but is useful if you're using the lens to take portraits for example. It may have been from photozone, which has in depth reviews for both these lenses.

I use a Sigma 105/2.8 macro for flowers, butterflies, dragonflies, etc when I can get close to them, and the 300/4afs with 1.4 tele otherwise, which is my main birding lens but has a good minimum focus distance. It's easier to get the shot on the 300 because of the working distance but the DOF is more difficult to control.

[Dipper]

I regularly sneak up on dragons with just a 105VR, down to minimum focusing distance, maybe complicate things occasionally with an extension tube.

[gvca1]

Although I don't have any experience with dragonflies, I think you should give the 300 f/4 a look, maybe with tubes. It focuses quite close without extension tubes, and might work fine for dragonflies right out of the box. I was amazed that I could take a picture of a (tiny) frog on the ground, with the 300 f/4 on a tripod, and a 1.4 TC II teleconverter fixed. I don't think I was even standing on tiptoes to get the shot.

As to your other two choices, I think you can't go wrong either way. No, the vr doesn't help much on the 105 at true macro distances, but I'm usually on a tripod anyway, so I'd probably have it turned off. The vr is great for all-round use, however, and does work at "near macro" distances. I think the biggest feature the Sigma 150 has over the Nikkor 105 is a tripod foot, not to mention the extra focal length.

Jim

[bombycilla]

Thanks to all for your comments !

Anyone care to share some examples ?

I already have the Nikon 300mm AFS f4 and did consider tubes to use on dragons. It is a pretty heavy lens though and I only use it in the hide for birds. The Sigma is quite heavy too but less unwieldy.


Bob

[Duke Leto]

have a look here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dukeleto/555648152/in/set-72157594187341276/) taken with a 300/4 and ext tube, in fact all of the insect shots would have been taken with that lens, its a cracker and so versatile

[Rob Chace]

I'm no macro expert but I assume that normally you wouldn't shoot wide open as there will be very little dof, so the loss of a stop shouldn't be a show stopper (no pun intended).
Also if you mod the Nikon TC which is a very simple mod, you would only need to carry one, the Nikon will be superior to the Kenko but not sure if it would be visible.
The Nikon 1.4x tc will not fit the Sigma even when modified. I have both.
Rob

[bombycilla]

have a look here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dukeleto/555648152/in/set-72157594187341276/) taken with a 300/4 and ext tube, in fact all of the insect shots would have been taken with that lens, its a cracker and so versatile

Nice shots Steve ! What ext tubes did you use (size wise) and if the Kenko ones, can you auto focus with a D3000 - I tend to use manual for dragons anyway, if not.

Maybe I should save £500 and give the tubes a go, but I think I would need some support - the light up here is not so good !

Bob

[Duke Leto]

sorry really lazy never record which one, will use the extn tube best for the shot, yes I use Kenko which retain all functionality but use MF for any close work.

[ikw101]

I agree with Steve on this one - another vote for the 300mm f4 plus extension tubes. Although focus and exposure has to be adjusted manually it's relatively easy especially on the older non AF-S lens. A recent example (http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/254950/size/big/cat/500/ppuser/26920)

Link (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Macro-Extension-Tubes-4-NIKON-D40-D60-D70-D80-D90-D300-_W0QQitemZ350125235445QQcmdZViewItem)to the extension tubes used.

[syncrasy]

It's easier to get the shot on the 300 because of the working distance but the DOF is more difficult to control.

Could you please elaborate on the DOF control difficulties you encounter?

[Helios]

DOF seems narrower for the same framing, and its more difficult to achieve the angle you want because of the working distance. So with a static subject, I prefer the 105/2.8 macro. But the 300/4 does pretty well for dragonflies.

[Dipper]

A dragon example taken with a 105VR; http://www.flickr.com/photos/adiroyle/3609858387/

I'm not sure if I would want to be carrying around a bigger lens than this 105VR. If you want to specialise in insect macros then this is an ideal lens. It can easily be used handheld, the VR really does help especially in dull UK light. With added extension tubes the really small subjects can be photographed. If all you want to photograph are big dragons and birds then a 300mm would be fine.

[David Smith]

Thanks to all for your comments !

Anyone care to share some examples ?
Bob

I use the Sigma 150 and am very happy with it-I think the cropped attachment shows what it can do (this without tripod).

[RJM]

Does anyone use the Nikon R1 close-up flash kit for macros with either the 105 VR or Sigma 150?

tia,
Rick

[Dipper]

Yes I do with the 105VR. Does it work with the Sigma?

[RJM]

I don't why it shouldn't as the R1 kit comes with a 72mm adapter ring, right? So can you elaborate on how the R1 works for you?

[Dipper]

Fitting it to the lens wouldn't be the problem, getting it to work with the lens was what I was thinking about. I don't recall seeing anything in the manual about using it with anything other than Nikon lenses. Worth a try though I suppose.

I find it very useful as I do a lot of insect photography in dark woodland and in poor UK light. Still haven't mastered it though.

[Watts]

Yes I do with the 105VR. Does it work with the Sigma?

Works fine with the Sigma 150mm. Moth (Psyche casta) larva taken using D300, Sigma 150 and R1 kit. Camera flash in Commander mode with no contribution to exposure, one of the two flashes set at +0.3 EV, the other at standard output.

Bill

[RJM]

Excellent Bill! That's some narrow DoF too. Do you use a focus rail? I was thinking of getting the Velbon Super Mag Slide but not sure if I would need it from longer shooting distances. Do you know the reproduction factor of the Sigma 150 from about 1-2 meters?

Rick

[Watts]

Do you use a focus rail? I was thinking of getting the Velbon Super Mag Slide but not sure if I would need it from longer shooting distances. Do you know the reproduction factor of the Sigma 150 from about 1-2 meters?

Rick

Thanks, Rick. I don't use a focus rail, but I think I probably should for studio type shots. This particular one was taken in the field (well, back garden) either resting on my elbows or possibly using a bean bag (sorry I can't remember which). I often use a monopod which I can rock backwards and forwards for crtitical framing or focus but I'm pretty certain I wasn't on this occasion as it was too close to the ground.
The reproduction factor is about 1:5 to 1:10 over the 1-2 metres range.
Bill