macro lenses advice - Sigma 105mm 2.8 or Sigma 150mm 2.8?

[headfonz]

hey,

i've decided to invest in another macro lens as i find that the ZD50 f2 + ex25 is too exhausting to use (very close focusing distance) with the highly active insects over here in SG. i've decided against waiting for the fabled ZD100mm macro since its been delayed forever and will likely be too expensive.

so that leaves me with the Sigmas...

i would like some advice from you guys who have used either the Sigma 105 f2.8 or 150 f2.8 (e.g. NatureTTL ). hopefully you can share your field experience and your opinions if the min focusing distance of 0.32m vs 0.38m makes any major difference or performance issues?

i would really like to know if the performance and weight differences makes the Sigma 150 f2.8 worth it?

[malee]

well call me shallow, but i ordered the 150mm primarily coz of price; OP sells them at $850 for 150mm and $690 for 105mm....
that and I found that I snap more pics at 150mm than 100mm with the ZD40-150mm...

[schon]

i'd say the 150mm cos it's 'further away' from what you already have.

think someone has shared this link before. it's in japanese, but it does give you a comparison.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/re...1/14/4995.html

[blurboiboi]

perhap it depends on what you wanna shoot....
150mm gives u more working distance ya??.... more suitable for sensitive insects like butts....
but it is a huge lens and will be abit off balance on a E510... but if you are using the E3, then it should not be a prob ba...

if i am not wrong 150 comes wif HSM and the 105 does'nt right??...

[drakon09]

Go 150mm.

The additional working distance is valuable for butts and the more jumpy insects.

Sigma has a 180mm macro as well, not sure if it's comes in 4/3 mount though.

[holidaydom]

I was in your exact situation a few months back.

I ultimately got the 105 cos of price and also cos it's lighter and has a shorter focal length.

The standoff distance is similar to the 150 but being lighter and having a shorter focal length, it's easier to hand hold and I feel that it's short enough for general use too.

The one I got has no focusing issues and it focuses faster than the 50mm; although it does tend to hunt cos it's a macro and so focusing is very fine. Compared to the 50mm I'd say they both have about the same tendency to hunt.

Manual focusing on the 105 is very easy.

Sharpness wise I'm no pro shooter so I'd be hard press to tell the difference. Most of the time, a lack of sharpness is due to my errors in focusing, exposure or handshake.

By the way, shooting both at the same distance and f-stop, the 105 will give you slightly more depth of field than the 150 due to its shorter focal length.

NatureTTL takes wonderful photos with his 150. Whereas for me, the 105 is easier to use overall and this is important too cos then you'll tend to pick it up more often.

Head down to a shop and give both of'em a try to find out for yourself!

[headfonz]

Originally Posted by schon i'd say the 150mm cos it's 'further away' from what you already have. think someone has shared this link before. it's in japanese, but it does give you a comparison. http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/re...1/14/4995.html

thanks schon, yeah i went through the site before. what is apparent is that the bokeh / oof highlights of the 150 f2.8 is smoother and circular compared to the 105 f2.8. sharpness wise, i can't see a significant difference between the 2. what do you guys think of the comparison?

[headfonz]

Originally Posted by blurboiboi perhap it depends on what you wanna shoot.... 150mm gives u more working distance ya??.... more suitable for sensitive insects like butts.... but it is a huge lens and will be abit off balance on a E510... but if you are using the E3, then it should not be a prob ba... if i am not wrong 150 comes wif HSM and the 105 does'nt right??...

Originally Posted by drakon09 Go 150mm. The additional working distance is valuable for butts and the more jumpy insects. Sigma has a 180mm macro as well, not sure if it's comes in 4/3 mount though.

thanks for the advice guys just to ask, does the extra 0.06m advantage in working distance of make that much difference?

[headfonz]

Originally Posted by holidaydom I was in your exact situation a few months back. I ultimately got the 105 cos of price and also cos it's lighter and has a shorter focal length. The standoff distance is similar to the 150 but being lighter and having a shorter focal length, it's easier to hand hold and I feel that it's short enough for general use too. The one I got has no focusing issues and it focuses faster than the 50mm; although it does tend to hunt cos it's a macro and so focusing is very fine. Compared to the 50mm I'd say they both have about the same tendency to hunt. Manual focusing on the 105 is very easy. Sharpness wise I'm no pro shooter so I'd be hard press to tell the difference. Most of the time, a lack of sharpness is due to my errors in focusing, exposure or handshake. By the way, shooting both at the same distance and f-stop, the 105 will give you slightly more depth of field than the 150 due to its shorter focal length. NatureTTL takes wonderful photos with his 150. Whereas for me, the 105 is easier to use overall and this is important too cos then you'll tend to pick it up more often. Head down to a shop and give both of'em a try to find out for yourself!

thanks man great advice. btw, i'm hesistant to go test the lenses cos i may end up buying the 150 on impluse.

[holidaydom]

Originally Posted by headfonz thanks man great advice. btw, i'm hesistant to go test the lenses cos i may end up buying the 150 on impluse.

Haha - I was exactly in that position when I tried both lenses.

My decision was made easier cos of this stain on the front element of the 150.

I walked into the shop with the intention of getting the 105 after much research but after trying the 150 it was very tempting due to the overall better build of the 150.

But remember that 105 will be noticably easier to handhold than the 150 at macro distances due to both weight and focal length.

I'll post some pics if and when I find time

[drakon09]

Originally Posted by headfonz thanks for the advice guys just to ask, does the extra 0.06m advantage in working distance of make that much difference?

You take all the distance you can get. Even more so when you slap the extension tube on.

6cm is all it takes to threaten a spider enough to jump away.

When sharpness is concerned, the Sigma primes are pretty decent (hey, if you can't even engineer a sharp prime lens, then you shouldn't be making lenses in the first place).

[spidey89]

Originally Posted by drakon09 You take all the distance you can get. Even more so when you slap the extension tube on. 6cm is all it takes to threaten a spider enough to jump away. When sharpness is concerned, the Sigma primes are pretty decent (hey, if you can't even engineer a sharp prime lens, then you shouldn't be making lenses in the first place).

I agree wholeheartedly

[VSonic06]

Originally Posted by drakon09 (hey, if you can't even engineer a sharp prime lens, then you shouldn't be making lenses in the first place).

Sigma have some decent prime lenses but their manufacturing QC is a bit dodgy.

[microcosm]

I would go for the 150, since it is a better lens with a better bokeh. Worth spending a little more on the HSM. Also, when "fablelens" is out, you can still give yourself a reason to buy it. LOL.

Don't think... 150!

[Blu-By-U]

105mm would mean a minimum holdable speed of 1/200s while the 150mm is 1/300s. This is slightly different from person to person and whether you have IS on camera or you use a tripod. I just got the 105 and it really sharp. As for AF, it hunts. unless you know how to thump the shutter to get in focus.

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by Blu-By-U 105mm would mean a minimum holdable speed of 1/200s while the 150mm is 1/300s. This is slightly different from person to person and whether you have IS on camera or you use a tripod. I just got the 105 and it really sharp. As for AF, it hunts. unless you know how to thump the shutter to get in focus.

1/200 - 1/300 sec difference is no longer an issue on IS equipped cameras. So depends on what camera is the TS using as well. Weight is never much of an issue since we will get used to it. I have seen so many female photojournalists lugging those huge L lens for sports photography.

[headfonz]

Originally Posted by microcosm Don't think... 150!

bro, remind me not to ask you for lens buying advice if i ever have a dilema between the ZD150 f2 and the ZD300 f2 in my lifetime

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by headfonz bro, remind me not to ask you for lens buying advice if i ever have a dilema between the ZD150 f2 and the ZD300 f2 in my lifetime

That is easy... buy the 90-250 instead!

If you asked this easier, I would have sold you mine... LOL.

[headfonz]

thanks for all the advice shared in such a short time since my post

i'm a loyal owner of a E510 (for as long as the warranty lasts ) but it doesn't really matter which body i'll be using on since i don't use the IS much.

will be upgrading my tripod as well when i decide on the lens so i'm just doing a cost / benefit comparison between the 2. i'm leaning towards the 105 f2.8 for the DOF and size...will decide after testing.

[headfonz]

Originally Posted by microcosm That is easy... buy the 90-250 instead! If you asked this easier, I would have sold you mine... LOL.

that monster is like an anti tank weapon