Discussion on Lens Performance: Sigma 180mm Macro f3.5

[Spectrum]

Anyone out there own this macro lens? How is the performance & handling of the lens? And is there any articles comparison related to this lens(in terms of sharpness from Sigma lens to other lens). Your kind input is greatly appreciated & I'm thinking of buying a Nikon mount macro lens.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Anyone out there own this macro lens? How is the performance & handling of the lens? And is there any articles comparison related to this lens(in terms of sharpness from Sigma lens to other lens). Your kind input is greatly appreciated & I'm thinking of buying a Nikon mount macro lens.

Found 19 reviews here.... some should be from the Nikon camp:
http://www.photographyreview.com/psc...5_3111crx.aspx

[Jed]

There was a review early on in the forum, less than a week ago, that compared the Sigma 50, 105 and 180, Tamron 90 and 180, and Canon 100 and 180.

I would caution everyone looking to purchase a Sigma 180 to check that out first. I have no idea if the methodology was sound or not, but from that, I wouldn't touch the Sigmas with a barge pole. I've never owned a Sigma because I could never put up with their build, and to a lesser extent their focusing, but based on that test I wouldn't touch them because of their shocking image quality too.

Like I said, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that test, but it's worth considering. Based on that, I'd sell the Sigma if anyone gave it to me.

[Spectrum]

Hmmmm...I think I'm gotta do more in-depth research to this lens. Thank you guys for sharing what you know best.

[kenghor]

First time I read someone mentioned something bad about the Sigma 180 macro and I will take with with a pail of salt.

All reports so far from actual users raves about that lens. These include users who had used the Canon 180 L lens and nikon 200 macro.

When I checked the price with Nelson at Konota, he mentioned that some time back when he was still the partner of Photoguide, there was a mass order of this lens from Photo-Art. These people are making big prints for Salon competition, so it says something about the optics of this lens.

The only reserve that I had with Sigma is compatability problem. But heck, the price of an L is 3 times as much! And so far, no body is complaining with the newer Sigma lens. Tamron is another lens that I consider but it cost at about $1250.

[Papilio]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Anyone out there own this macro lens? How is the performance & handling of the lens? And is there any articles comparison related to this lens(in terms of sharpness from Sigma lens to other lens). Your kind input is greatly appreciated & I'm thinking of buying a Nikon mount macro lens.

There are articles and reviews raving about the Sigma 180mm and also condemning it. You'll have to take each review with a pinch of salt (or as kenghor puts it, a pail of salt)

Like all photographic products, read the reviews for all they're worth, and do some assessment yourself. I've always been asked whether my Sigma lenses fog up. Both my EX lenses, the 105mm and the 180mm have no such problems. Canon users have had some problems with Sigma cos of compatibility problems. As I'm a Nikon user, I never had any lock-up problems with both my lenses nor any other mechanical nor electronic glitches with them - even when I used them on F601, F70, F80 and of late, the D100. So if you're a Nikon user, rest assured that this lens does not have any of the SIGnificant MAlfunction notoriety that is often associated with Sigma products.

My only nitpick with this lens, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, is that I like to handhold my shots, and with the longer 180mm focal length, to do so is almost impossible. The 180mm is a heavy lens. Camera shake will spoil your shots if the shutter speeds generally fall below 1/200s when handholding. However, with a tripod, the shots would be more than a good match for some original manufacturers' lenses.

Here are two samples shot with the Sigma 180mm. The first shot is handheld, and shot at 1/90s (any lower than this, camera shake is evident).

Handheld shot. 1/90s @ f8. Picture uncropped.


Tripod-mounted shot. Picture uncropped. 1/60s @ f9

[Jed]

Gentlemen,

The only reason I brought that up was as a public service mention. I certainly do not need a lecture on how to interpret reviews, nor advice about "pail(s) of salt". I'll take a little bit less of the hyperbole too please thank you very much.

Originally Posted by kenghor All reports so far from actual users raves about that lens. These include users who had used the Canon 180 L lens and nikon 200 macro.

Well good for you. How about practising what you preach and interpreting those results with a "pail of salt"? Selective retention is one of those funny things.

This review I mention isn't just the subjective bish bosh; the guy's got the results to prove it and they are shocking. Unless he has a personal vendetta against Sigma (and how do you know everyone else isn't in love with Sigma or feels the need to justify their purchase?), the pictures speak for themselves.

Go look at those pictures. Or if you can't be bothered, that's fine too. Incidentally he's got side by side comparisons with the Canon L lens, the Tamron, and the Sigma (hmm, that sounds familiar, I must have mentioned it in my first post...). And I'll spell it out for you, the Canon and Tamron were for all intents and purposes on a par, the Sigma vastly inferior.

These people are making big prints for Salon competition, so it says something about the optics of this lens.

Sorry, that doesn't really say anything to me at all. Not to mention that, admittedly, the vast majority of people don't use their lenses anywhere close to their potential, and in which case, sure those people can go ahead and buy dud lenses, because it won't matter.

The link is here.

And just in case anyone thinks I'm anti-Sigma, go back to my original post and count the number of qualifications I made about my not being able to vouch for the validity of the test, and you draw your own conclusions. And I get lectured not just about pinches of salt, but pails.

And Kenghor, I'm not in any way trying to rain on your parade either, but I don't care how cheap a lens is, if it's as bad as that test makes it appear to be, then frankly I couldn't stop myself from warning people off it. You'd do the same as well if you saw those results.

[Jed]

Originally Posted by Papilio There are articles and reviews raving about the Sigma 180mm and also condemning it. You'll have to take each review with a pinch of salt (or as kenghor puts it, a pail of salt) Like all photographic products, read the reviews for all they're worth, and do some assessment yourself.

Nothing personal, but I'm supposed to draw inferences from your two pictures? You can't tell anything from images that are about 400-500 pixels across. At least this review that I'm talking about posts a range of full res crops from various parts of the frame, from a 1Ds. Which as I pointed out to someone, isn't even a very high resolution device in absolute terms - a 10D places more resolution requirements on a lens than a 1Ds, although obviously it won't be able to resolve the corners. And as I also said to that same someone, if the Sigma is that bad already on a 1Ds, it will be even more awful on a 10D or any other 6mp, 1.5x FLM chip.

I've always been asked whether my Sigma lenses fog up. Both my EX lenses, the 105mm and the 180mm have no such problems.

I've also been asked if Sigma lens front elements are held together with tape. At least some of them are. It is also public knowledge that early Sigmas (pre-EX)do indeed suffer from fogging problems.

Camera shake will spoil your shots if the shutter speeds generally fall below 1/200s when handholding.

<snipped>

Here are two samples shot with the Sigma 180mm. The first shot is handheld, and shot at 1/90s (any lower than this, camera shake is evident).


And this is good too. So camera shake spoils shots with shutter speeds below 1/200s. And you're posting a pic taken at 1/90s as evidence of the lens' optical quality? A bit of a contradiction.

And yes, anyone who can use a 180mm lens shot at close to life size magnification hand held at 1/90s as an example of a lens' optical performance and be completely pleased with the result, could probably shoot with a pinhole camera and be just as pleased.

Ok I slightly exaggerate, but no more so than pails of salt.

[Papilio]

Very good, Mr Moderator. I was just trying to help and you flame my posting. Yes, my posting of a less than 1/f shot is a contradiction, but it's meant to show that it's still possible to handhold something this heavy, and still get reasonably good shots. Perhaps you strive for perfection or are a pro, whilst some users here who are looking at kenghor's good buy and who cannot or do not want to buy OEM lenses should consider the big price difference and make that decision for themselves without discouraging phrases like "Like I said, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that test, but it's worth considering. Based on that, I'd sell the Sigma if anyone gave it to me."

I've also been asked if Sigma lens front elements are held together with tape. At least some of them are. It is also public knowledge that early Sigmas (pre-EX)do indeed suffer from fogging problems.

Thank you. I rest my case, as far as the EX series are concerned.

And yes, anyone who can use a 180mm lens shot at close to life size magnification hand held at 1/90s as an example of a lens' optical performance and be completely pleased with the result, could probably shoot with a pinhole camera and be just as pleased.

For a moderator here, you're uncharacteristically patronising and beginning to sound personal.

[YSLee]

Jed is posting in his capacity as a member of the forum, not as a moderator. If you wish to disagree with him, don't use that as an excuse. Typical Singaporean behaviour; something goes wrong, rant at the authorities.

May I remind some of you that Jed has a vast experience as a working pro, a technical writer, as well as a formal training in the workings of the law, as such I find him far more qualified to comment on the various hyberbole that only equipment wankers come up with as compared to the people who blindly take pails of salt for any review they disagree with. And in this case I have to agree the review was well conducted, though limited in scope.

[YSLee]

And I'd suggest you drop your own patronising tone; learn to respect those better than you.

[Jed]

Originally Posted by Papilio Very good, Mr Moderator... For a moderator here, you're uncharacteristically patronising and beginning to sound personal.

Several things.

That's because, strangely enough, I have a personality too. That was me speaking, in no way was I acting in a moderating role.

I was just trying to help and you flame my posting.

And was I not trying to help by warning people and referring them to that review? To be fair, you didn't exactly flame me although you post some seriously salty claims and then lecture me about pinches of salt. The real damage was done by certain claims of pails of salt and that got me going, so you just got caught in the crossfire.

Yes, my posting of a less than 1/f shot is a contradiction, but it's meant to show that it's still possible to handhold something this heavy, and still get reasonably good shots.

Sorry mate, make up your mind.

[b]Perhaps you strive for perfection or are a pro, whilst some users here who are looking at kenghor's good buy and who cannot or do not want to buy OEM lenses should consider the big price difference and make that decision for themselves without discouraging phrases like "Like I said, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that test, but it's worth considering. Based on that, I'd sell the Sigma if anyone gave it to me."

Go look at the results form that review. For starters, no where did I ask anyone to buy the Canon. There is another option.

I've also been asked if Sigma lens front elements are held together with tape. At least some of them are. It is also public knowledge that early Sigmas (pre-EX)do indeed suffer from fogging problems.

Thank you. I rest my case, as far as the EX series are concerned.

Huh? Pray tell what the relevance of all this is? Did I say that Sigmas suffered from fogging problems?

I said based on the results from that comparison, the Sigmas were very very poor optically. How proving (which incidentally you haven't done) that they don't fog therefore proves your argument and defeats mine I have no idea, since it isn't even vaguely relevant.

Good grief, remind me this is the last time I try to play good samaritan and warn people off dodgy lenses.

And let me stress for the umpteenth time (again, you're caught in the crossfire, because you're not the sole cause of this problem), I have a name, I have my own personal opinions outside of my life as a moderator, and that's all I'm expressing!

[Papilio]

Originally Posted by YSLee And I'd suggest you drop your own patronising tone; learn to respect those better than you.

I suggest that you stay out of this and leave it between Jed and me to sort this out ok? I think he's a bit more gentlemanly in his most recent message as we're both caught in crossfires of opinions.

I don't need another kaypoh (typical Singaporean behaviour too) to step in and give your two cents worth.

At least Jed doesn't go around saying that he commands respect because "he's better than other people".

[Terence]

Good grief! Let's not degenerate this thread into a character bashing one. Shouldn't the tech aspects of the lens be discussed under the tech column, and not over here?

YSLee... you made some really unnecessary comments. Poking the fire isn't going to help things.

[Papilio]

Originally Posted by Terence Good grief! Let's not degenerate this thread into a character bashing one. Shouldn't the tech aspects of the lens be discussed under the tech column, and not over here? YSLee... you made some really unnecessary comments. Poking the fire isn't going to help things.

Thanks, Terence. I was wondering if other orcs were going to jump out of the woodwork and bash me up as well.

[Papilio]

Originally Posted by Jed Good grief, remind me this is the last time I try to play good samaritan and warn people off dodgy lenses. And let me stress for the umpteenth time (again, you're caught in the crossfire, because you're not the sole cause of this problem), I have a name, I have my own personal opinions outside of my life as a moderator, and that's all I'm expressing!

Ok, guess we've taking this wayyyy real OT from the original poster's MO. I use both the 105's from Nikon and Sigma, and I must say that the results from both are reasonably close for me to vouch for the the more recent EX lenses.

For the 180 I did say that there were both good and bad reviews for it, and to take it with a pinch (the pails part was quoted elsewhere) of salt (meaning that the good reviews should be taken for what they're worth as well). I didn't opine that your reference to the review was totally wrong, but neither would I say that they're totally correct, and conclude that the Sigma is a dud as well.

Guess I'll close off by saying that we've agreed to disagree. Thanks for your opinions (and btw, I did read the review that you pointed to). I'll leave it to those who are still interested in the MO and kenghor to deal with their choices.

[Jed]

Fair play mate. Like I said, it was the pails thing that really triggered it off, and like you said, it wasn't you. But if you thought I was being patronising and condescending, then what did you think I felt when I get told to apply pails of salt?

And to everyone else, if you get nothing else from this thread, go read that review in the link a few posts back. Or rather, look at the comparisons. And like I said originally and I'll say again, I can't vouch for it's accuracy and you draw your own conclusions. Apply salt to taste.

[ST1100]

OT a bit: Most interesting MO thread i've read in a long while.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jed Good grief, remind me this is the last time I try to play good samaritan and warn people off dodgy lenses.

Jed & Papilio, never be discouraged as very often in this forum there are miscommunication that led to misunderstanding but very often cleared up.

There are many people in CS who are learning and gaining knowledge from all the postings and this topic is no exception.

to both of you!
Cheers

[Spectrum]

Thank you Jed on the previous post where there's a link to comparison with each macro(Canon, Tamron & Sigma). Now I know which is best to buy to suits my needs.