Before I bought my 105Micro nikkor (with vr) i read reviews on that class of micro lenses. Although most said the Sigma won out in sharpness even over the Nikkor (at over f/11), I went with the nikon because I had one before using with my F4 & F100 film bodies. I don't remember the specific magazines, but I noted that ONE of them gave the sharpness rating over the Sigma. has anyone here seen the same articles and/ratings ? Seems strange that ALL EXCEPT ONE hailed the Sigma as king over the Nikkor. Wonder why???
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
105 Micros
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
I don't remember the specific magazines, but I noted that ONE of them gave the sharpness rating over the Sigma. has anyone here seen the same articles and/ratings ? Seems strange that ALL EXCEPT ONE hailed the Sigma as king over the Nikkor. Wonder why???
I am at the stage with my photography that sharpness is not everything about a lens. Dxo emphasizes their results with lens sharpness but does not factor in bokeh, AF speed, bokeh, vignette, CA, etc.
I do my research very well and if possible try the lens out before purchasing one. Since you already have the Nikon 105mm f2.8VR, why bother looking for comparisson with other lenses? The Sigma 150mm f2.8 has been reported a very good macro lens. Great distance to keep you further away from bugs but it is also bigger and heavier. Some prefers it and some don't.
Hey Glenn, thanks for the input. My inquiry is actually more of a curiosity on the degree of accuracy/relevance of photo magazine camera/lens tests, I'm satisfied with the Nikkor, as I stated I this my second. I went with my instinct. and experience...I never use the Micro past f/11 anyway, and more usually at f/8. I'm looking into focus stacking soon too. Lastly, Sigma lenses are definitely awesome contenders. I have the 150-500 zoom and I am amazed at the images obtained for a lens that costs barely over $1K.
It can depend on the source. Some reviews carry more weight with me than others. You also have to use common sense. If multiple sources pick one lens as best and there's only one that says otherwise, the odds are the one source either performed the tests poorly or had a bad sample of a lens.
I have the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro and the AF-D version of the Nikon 105 and love both. But they are used differently. The Sigma for more working distance and when weight isn't an issue. The 105 is used for larger subjects and when weight is more or an issue. Which is sharper? I don't know. Both are fantastic glass.
I have the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro and the AF-D version of the Nikon 105 and love both. But they are used differently. The Sigma for more working distance and when weight isn't an issue. The 105 is used for larger subjects and when weight is more or an issue. Which is sharper? I don't know. Both are fantastic glass.
Cowleystjames
Senior Member
I have the sigma 150mm f2.8 which is an awesome lens, however it's heavy and I sometimes yearn for a lighter lens with similar shooting distance.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
Hey Glenn, thanks for the input. My inquiry is actually more of a curiosity on the degree of accuracy/relevance of photo magazine camera/lens tests, I'm satisfied with the Nikkor, as I stated I this my second. I went with my instinct. and experience...I never use the Micro past f/11 anyway, and more usually at f/8. I'm looking into focus stacking soon too. Lastly, Sigma lenses are definitely awesome contenders. I have the 150-500 zoom and I am amazed at the images obtained for a lens that costs barely over $1K.
I've posted some shots using the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR using the focus stacking technique on the thread below.
http://nikonites.com/macro/11665-my-first-attempt-focus-stacking.html#axzz2U0wbjCNp
http://nikonites.com/prime/9040-nikon-105mm-f2-8-vri-lens-7.html#post125180
Last edited: