Sigma 150 vs 180 Macro

[bear1962]

I'm ready to buy a macro now and was wondering if anyone has any experience with these lenses.

I've heard the 150 is very sharp but gets soft up high (F22) but I think ALL lenses get soft at the extremes.

I haven't found much info on the 180.

Any info is appreciated

[CincoJoe]

I bought the 150 but haven't had the chance to do anything serious with it yet. I hope to get a chance to play with it this weekend.

[Casper]

I am happy with my Sigma 150 macro, I have not tried the 180. It is a good prime lens, too. 1:2 macro hand held is okay, but 1:1 is tripod time.

I like the quiet, fast auto focus, manual focus ring, and the overall feel of the lens.

[jamesw]

Hi,

I've used the 150mm extensively for my underwater photography. The f2.8 helps for low-light focusing, but isn't good for much else as I rarely shoot the lens wide-open.

I usually use the 150mm with a Canon 500D as I would rather have the magnification instead of the working distance.

Cheers
James

[Glen_A]

Originally Posted by bear1962

I'm ready to buy a macro now and was wondering if anyone has any experience with these lenses.

I've heard the 150 is very sharp but gets soft up high (F22) but I think ALL lenses get soft at the extremes.

I haven't found much info on the 180.

Any info is appreciated

I don't have any info on that lens at F22 but I found an excellent article on why lenses are soft at F22 when used on a camera with an aps sized sensor like your Nikon D70. http://bobatkins.com/photography/tec...ffraction.html

[jeffkohn]

Diffraction is indeed a limitation more of the camera than the lens, but even so some lenses are not going to perform as well as others at certain apertures. The Sigma 150 is great particularly in the f/2.8-f/8 range, but in the f/16-f/22 range I don't think it's quite as good as some of the other macro lenses. That's not to say it's _bad_ in that f/stop range, but there may be better alternatives if you're going to be shooting 1:1 stuff and stopping down all the way for maximum DOF. IMHO the strength of the Sigma 150 is for closeup work (in the 1:2 - 1:4 range) when shooting medium apertures, as well as doubling as a general use telephoto. I've had it for about a year now and although it's not my most used lens I have been happy with the results I get from it. The shots in this gallerywere all taken with the Sigma 150.

The Sigma 180 is reportedly a good lens, but doesn't get quite as much attention as the Tamron 180 which is supposed to be even better.

[bear1962]

whoa... Tons of info

Thanks everyone !!!

Jeff, love the pics. The San Antonio zoo had a butterfly exhibit but an oak tree fell on it. They've just about got it put back together and it should be open this spring.

[Wayne Nicholas]

I bought the Sigma 180 3.5 EX DG a while back to start doing macro and close-ups on insects and butterfly shots and could not be happier with sharpness of this lens all the way to f/20; I haven't had to use it at anything more. The 180mm gives the shooter a little extra reach that really comes in handy if insects, etc. are your prime target. It also gives you a tighter field of view which helps to isolate the subject better. As far as 2.8 vs. 3.5 for macro, it's really a wash, as most macro work is done using manual focus and the camera will need the 2.8 more to AF than the photog will need it to manual focus. Just my $.05.