Macro lens suggestions for the D500

leeinla

Senior Member
Which is a better lens: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro or the Nikon Micro 105mm f/2.8 G AF-S VR? I know I will get 150mm with a DX crop factor.

Thanks,

Lee
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
Which is a better lens: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro or the Nikon Micro 105mm f/2.8 G AF-S VR? I know I will get 150mm with a DX crop factor.

Thanks,

Lee

Hi Lee, whatever of the new macro lenses you buy, rest assured they will all be good.
Between the new Sigma 105 and new Nikon 105 -

Nikon 105 - has internal focusing, this means the lens doesn't extend out when focusing in close, it stays the same length. More expensive.
Sigma 105 - doesn't have internal focusing ( EDIT- apparently the newest version does have internal focusing), the end of the lens will extend out quite a bit when focusing on close subjects. May, or may not have compatibility problems with new cameras ( I haven't heard of any problems with this particular lens ).
Cheaper than the Nikon.

Read the reviews and comparisons online, different opinions prefer different lenses. Both are good, as is the Tamron 90 and Tokina 100. All will take great photos in the right hands.

EDIT- I own the Nikon 105 VR, and a Nikon 55 macro. If I lost both of them and had to buy a new macro lens, I would probably get the Tokina 100, mainly because it cheap and the image quality is great. VR and AF mean nothing to me for macro.
 
Last edited:

paul04

Senior Member
Sigma 105 - doesn't have internal focusing, the end of the lens will extend out quite a bit when focusing on close subjects. May, or may not have compatibility problems with new cameras ( I haven't heard of any problems with this particular lens ).
Cheaper than the Nikon.

The new version sigma lens I had (Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens) does have internal focusing.
 
Last edited:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
May, or may not have compatibility problems with new cameras ( I haven't heard of any problems with this particular lens ).
Cheaper than the Nikon.

Both the Sigma and the Nikon would serve well. My biggest concern with non-Nikon lenses is the compatibility issue as Ironwood mentioned--especially with Sigma lenses. The newer Sigma lenses can be connected to a dock to download the latest firmware. Not sure their current macro lens has that capability, so if there ever is a compatibility issue (even with a future Nikon body), the lens would have to be shipped back to Sigma for firmware updates.

Any of the macro lenses that have been mentioned would work well.
 

aroy

Senior Member
If you do not need the longer focal length, and are going to shoot mostly flowers and inanimate objects, the Nikon 60mm is a better lens. It is sharper and has a flat plane - most useful when using it for copying flat objects - stamps, coins, slide/film and small flowers. Most of the other macro lenses have a curvature of field, so that the edges will not come out as sharp as the centre.

Another thing to check is CA. It is not only annoying, but also contributes to diffraction effect which manifests itself earlier, as most of us use the Macro Lens at higher f stops, diffraction softens the image. The Zeiss 135mm F2 has one of the lowest CA and extremely sharp to boot, though it does not go to 1:1, but you can always use an extension tube.
 

Theraphosa

Senior Member
I've used all three, plus the Tamron. I have the Nikon at work and a friend has the Sigma.
I seriously doubt that anyone can discern a difference in the quality of the images. All of these lenses are superb IMO.
I bought the Tokina because of the price. I liked it so well, that I bought a second one a year later when my wife wanted to get into macrophotography.
Paired with with the D5200, the D3200, or my new D500, ...all of the photos are stunning. ..but same for the Nikon, Sigma, ...and Tamron.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
If at times you are going to use the lens as a telephoto, you might want to be sure it has VR. Just a thought.
 
Top