diff bet sigma & nikon 105mm Marco


Status
Not open for further replies.
M

maxtheevil

Guest
#1
hello,

can i request for an objective view of the two lenses,

Sigma 105mm F2.8 macro,

&

Nikon 105mm F2.8 macro

(do try to state reasons, besides, branding, cos nikon thus nikon, and cost, cos, sigma is cheaper, thus sigma...)

of cos, bearing in mind, if that is possible, ... haha, thanks!

:dent:
 

M

maxtheevil

Guest
#3
so, so far, in your opinion, no diff in optics, yeah, ?

thanks for your comment!!!
 

Marx

New Member
Apr 2, 2003
379
0
0
East
Visit site
#4
Originally posted by Larry
optics-wise, i'm hard pressed to tell the difference between the 2...
This is one comment I also want to hear.

Not those that saying you cannot compare Sigma to a Nikkor just because it is a Nikkor. Very childish remarks!:angry: (Sorry, I can't help it.:embrass: )

If the Nikkor's 105mm optics is a 10, the Sigma's should be in the near 9, if not 10, IMHO.

My Sigma is working just great for me, though I can't say much about the Nikkor. (I don't have one.)
 

NitroTech

New Member
Apr 4, 2002
546
0
0
43
In Paradise
Visit site
#5
I agree with Larry that optics wise it's difficult to tell the difference. The only thing i don't like about the Sigma (Marx owns mine now btw ;p ) is that it hunts quite a lot.
 

Marx

New Member
Apr 2, 2003
379
0
0
East
Visit site
#6
Originally posted by NitroTech
...The only thing i don't like about the Sigma is that it hunts quite a lot.
Oh yes, the AF-hunting, this is a bit disappointing esp. at low-contrast situations, but can be easily overcome by MF, no big deal. YMMV, that's why you sell it off, right?? :)

So the Nikkor 105mm doesn't have this AF-hunting?? ;p
 

NitroTech

New Member
Apr 4, 2002
546
0
0
43
In Paradise
Visit site
#7
Originally posted by Marx
Oh yes, the AF-hunting, this is a bit disappointing esp. at low-contrast situations, but can be easily overcome by MF, no big deal. YMMV, that's why you sell it off, right?? :)

So the Nikkor 105mm doesn't have this AF-hunting?? ;p

I did not have any problems with the Nikkor one. But to be fair, i only shot with it on 2 occasions.
 

Larry

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2002
5,499
0
0
45
singapore
www.larryloh.com
#9
Originally posted by kthan
what's the price differential?
Nikon is almost twice the price of the Sigma...

or

Sigma is almsot half the price of the Nikon

(depending on if you're a half-empty or half-full cup person. :D )
 

Larry

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2002
5,499
0
0
45
singapore
www.larryloh.com
#11
Originally posted by kthan
wow, then slower AF hunting seems like a small price to pay
yup. that's why i ended up with the Sigma instead. anyway if you're a hardcore macro person you should be using MF instead of relying on the AF motor. with practice, it's really easier to manual focus.
 

#12
Hi Guys,

Just thought I'd chip in on this discussion.

The issue with focus-hunt is actually a non-issue if you are doing close-up or macro work. It is far more accurate to use the lens (Nikkor or Sigma) in the manual mode. That will give you the best control in determining the actual/precise point of focus and the subsequent DoF depending on your selected aperture. You cannot expect the camera's AF system to know exactly where you want the sharpest focus to be and this is a very critical point when working with close-up shots.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom