SIGMA 105 2.8 VS Nikon 105 2.8

SacrificeTheory

Senior Member
So I'm looking to replace my Nikon 105D with one of these options. From what I heard, they are both great lenses. The big difference is price. Right Now the Sigma I could get for $669 rather than the $850 price tag of the Nikon.My question is, is the Nikon worth the price difference or does the Sigma pull ahead?
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I've only used the Sigma and can vouch for it. I don't have a clue as how it would compare with the Nikon counterpart.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
So I'm looking to replace my Nikon 105D with one of these options. From what I heard, they are both great lenses. The big difference is price. Right Now the Sigma I could get for $669 rather than the $850 price tag of the Nikon.My question is, is the Nikon worth the price difference or does the Sigma pull ahead?

You can find Nikon 105mm f2.8VR in the USED market around $650. There are plenty of photographers who buys macro lenses and come to find out that it is not their thing so they usually sells them with very little use.

The Sigma is pretty light and not bad at all. All macro lenses are sharp so just choose which one catches your fancy. The Sigma 150mm f2.8 is also very good.

As far as value wise, that is all up to you. I try not to ask that type of question especially on equipment that I want to buy since we have our own preferences. We are all capable of making that decision so I don't bother asking other people if something is worth buying. They are both good, so just choose and move on but that is just me.
 

ShootRaw

Senior Member
My advice..I used to own the $850 Nikkor 105mm 2.8G VR....I sold it to buy some lighting that I needed...Anyway that lens was pretty heavy and now I own the 105mm 2.8 D and got it for $350... This lens while being older is just as sharp and very lightweight..VR is not needed and I could not be happier...
untitled-5761.jpg

Shot at 3.2 and 100% crop
 

Bill16

Senior Member
I have no clue myself. I'm thrilled to finally have my nikkor 105mm micro D lens. But I haven't heard anything bad about either lens. I tend to lean towards Nikon brand normally, but I can't say if it's worth the extra cost or not.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I opted for the Nikon lens only because Nikon was offering a camera/lens combo price this past fall. I haven't used it enough to weigh any pros/cons but haven't noticed any problems so far. That said, I've seen macro photos BackdoorHippie took with his Sigma lens, and they are absolutely stellar.

Here are links to Jake's bubble shot and snowflake shot taken with his Sigma lens. Check them out! That pee-wee snowflake sure looks mighty impressive. He might have used an extension tube for the snowflake (not sure though), but still...these are pro quality photos taken with the Sigma macro lens! ;)

Frozen bubble: https://www.flickr.com/photos/backdoorhippie/11754872363/

Snowflake: https://www.flickr.com/photos/backdoorhippie/11672121705/
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
So I'm looking to replace my Nikon 105D with one of these options. From what I heard, they are both great lenses. The big difference is price. Right Now the Sigma I could get for $669 rather than the $850 price tag of the Nikon.My question is, is the Nikon worth the price difference or does the Sigma pull ahead?

Why? whats wrong with the AFD? its a sharp as hell lens. bokeh isnt gorgeous but very nice. I have the nikon VR. elite in every way. if its between the nikon and the sigma, either is fine. depends how you shoot. and since I shoot up to 4.5 and mostly wide open, nikon is king. bokeh, nikon is gorgeous and for portraits (which I used mostly for) its like no other.

if youre using it for macro any of them is fine. I would do what Glenn recommended. try to find a used one. mine was used in mint condition with mack warranty on it. when I was shopping for a macro lens, it was down to 3 lenses. the VR, the AFD, and the tokina 100 2.8 which is razor sharp even wide open.
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
You might want to look at the Tokina ATX-Pro 100mm 2.8 and compare it with the Nikon, and Sigma... A quick check at the DXO scores, and the Tokina is a winner...
 

DraganDL

Senior Member
At such a price, this Sigma is highly over-estimated, IMHO. I bought my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 for <400$ (rather close to 350$, if my memory serves me well). Keep that Nikon - the difference in price is reflected it difference in quality. Also, of all third party producers, Sigma's lenses are best known to be suffering from incompatibility with some "brand" camera models (such and such lens doesn't work with such and such Nikon's or Canon's model, while perfectly working with other models)...

edit: what "FredKingston" just posted: according to many reviewers, Tokina's model might be the best in it's class, out there, in terms of quality vs price. At the time I was about to get me a macro lens, it was not available in Serbia, so I purchased Tamron.
 
Last edited:

SacrificeTheory

Senior Member
Why? whats wrong with the AFD? its a sharp as hell lens. bokeh isnt gorgeous but very nice. I have the nikon VR. elite in every way. if its between the nikon and the sigma, either is fine. depends how you shoot. and since I shoot up to 4.5 and mostly wide open, nikon is king. bokeh, nikon is gorgeous and for portraits (which I used mostly for) its like no other.

if youre using it for macro any of them is fine. I would do what Glenn recommended. try to find a used one. mine was used in mint condition with mack warranty on it. when I was shopping for a macro lens, it was down to 3 lenses. the VR, the AFD, and the tokina 100 2.8 which is razor sharp even wide open.

I do a lot of handheld action, so with the 105 D, I don't always get the sharpest image unless it's on a tripod. It also seems to hunt a lot to autofocus on the image. I feel either the VR or the Sigma would better suit me.

With the Tokima, does that have an image stabilizer. I haven't seen anything mentioned on it.
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
I do a lot of handheld action, so with the 105 D, I don't always get the sharpest image unless it's on a tripod. It also seems to hunt a lot to autofocus on the image. I feel either the VR or the Sigma would better suit me.

With the Tokima, does that have an image stabilizer. I haven't seen anything mentioned on it.

No..."We don't need no steenkin' image stabilization."

The Tokina is $400... use the $250-$400 difference between the other two lenses to buy a good tripod. :eek:
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
You might want to look at the Tokina ATX-Pro 100mm 2.8 and compare it with the Nikon, and Sigma... A quick check at the DXO scores, and the Tokina is a winner...

actually when I was looking to buy a macro, the Tokina was high on my list. I was locked on it. then out of the blue saw the 105 VR for a nice price. the tokina is sharper then all of them (if you want to compare all macros which are sharp already) I made the adjustment and added more for the VR. I dont know how much the VR has helped me really. at times when I do face closeups I think it did help but only a certain amount.
 

SacrificeTheory

Senior Member
I'm sure VR helps a good amount. Think about it, unless you have the worlds steadiest hands, camera shake can be noticeable, especially when you're magnifying the imaging by using a macro. That's why I might lean more towards those two also over the Tokina. Although the Tokina does sound really appealing.
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
I do a lot of handheld action, so with the 105 D, I don't always get the sharpest image unless it's on a tripod. It also seems to hunt a lot to autofocus on the image. I feel either the VR or the Sigma would better suit me.

With the Tokima, does that have an image stabilizer. I haven't seen anything mentioned on it.
Are you sure its not the way you are taking the photos or maybe using too slow a shutter speed? I do 98% handheld and even with my 90mm + 1.4TC (125mm) I get sharp images, but I am using flash and fast shutter speeds (1/160-1/320) or even faster with my SB-910.
 
Top