question for nikon users
- Thread starter SDiver
- Start date
hyperfocal
New member
I've used both the Nikon 105mm and the Tamron 90mm. Both are nice lenses, but the Nikon is superior imo. Not sure it is $300-superior though (that's the price premium for the Nikon vs. the Tamron). I guess it depends on what other gear you have. If I were just starting to gear up, I'd rather have the Tamron + (say) an SB-600 speedlight than just the Micro-Nikkor 105mm. Of course, if you aren't pining for other gear... :-D
Kinetic
Active member
I have a Sigma 105mm F/2.8
I've also used the Nikon 105mm F/2.8, but I couldn't tell the difference. If you goto FredMiranda dot com, they have a guy who took 6 different macro lenses and took the same picture of the same object at 1:1, and posted the photos. That was enough to convince me that the sigma was just as good.
I've also used the Nikon 105mm F/2.8, but I couldn't tell the difference. If you goto FredMiranda dot com, they have a guy who took 6 different macro lenses and took the same picture of the same object at 1:1, and posted the photos. That was enough to convince me that the sigma was just as good.
hyperfocal
New member
I took a look, but couldn't find the article you mentioned -- do you have a link?
Judging by the reviews there, the Sigma does a good job shooting macro but is weak on general photography. There are also some concerns about build quality (something I'd be nervous about based on my past experience with Sigma lenses).
It seems to be a decent enough macro lens, but just as good as a Nikkor?
Judging by the reviews there, the Sigma does a good job shooting macro but is weak on general photography. There are also some concerns about build quality (something I'd be nervous about based on my past experience with Sigma lenses).
It seems to be a decent enough macro lens, but just as good as a Nikkor?
hobbzz
How do I change this?
I would recommend the 105mm Nikkor non VR or the Sigma. I had the Nikkor 60mm and imo it wouldn'be a long enough focal length for tanks deeper than 12", and even that would be stretching it.
The VR works well, but not good enough to do handheld macros. It's just for general use. Most in-depth reviews will tell you that.
The VR works well, but not good enough to do handheld macros. It's just for general use. Most in-depth reviews will tell you that.
Kinetic
Active member
hyper: it was a thread in the forums rather than an article, but I'm not sure where it is at the moment, I'll take a look for you later. I believe it was in the Macro forum section.
Sigma's macro lens isn't the fastest in terms of Auto Focus, but the HSM they have now is pretty darn fast. For macros this isn't the biggest problem. USually you don't use a macro lens for general photography, only for macro, and sometimes for portraiture.
Build quality, that's just ridiculous talk. It has a metal mount, it's solid, what else do they want? Waxed ferarri red with sparkling pearl inlay?
Don't get tricked by people who say build quality sucks. All they look at is how the lens looks from the outside. It has metal mounts, awesome glass, and is solid. The texture isn't smooth like nikon, and it doesn't have some gold plaque on it saying it's a nikon, but really, build quality is not an issue. If these guys went into the lens and found a bunch of loose screws and such, then sure, bad build quality, but if you look at the outside and base your opinion on build quality due to the different textured exterior, I just think that's waaay too superficial, and you may be missing out on a great lens just because of looks. Plus I like the sigma look, it feels really high quality.
Big companies, like nikon, canon, sigma, tokina, tamron, they all have pretty darn good build quality. If you start dipping into the super discount lenses, then you should be a bit wary.
Unless you see people's lenses falling apart without being mishandled, then sure, build quality. But if you're just going by what people see and feel when they hold a lens, that's not the best.
For Fish tanks, however, I may suggest the Nikon 105 with VR. There's always those times when you want to shoot your fish, or you want to handhold your camera. Sometimes you want to go outside and shoot bugs and flowers, but the VR makes a world of a difference =) I don't have a macro VR yet, but damn I can assure you there are plenty of times I wish I had the VR lens =)
Sigma's macro lens isn't the fastest in terms of Auto Focus, but the HSM they have now is pretty darn fast. For macros this isn't the biggest problem. USually you don't use a macro lens for general photography, only for macro, and sometimes for portraiture.
Build quality, that's just ridiculous talk. It has a metal mount, it's solid, what else do they want? Waxed ferarri red with sparkling pearl inlay?
Don't get tricked by people who say build quality sucks. All they look at is how the lens looks from the outside. It has metal mounts, awesome glass, and is solid. The texture isn't smooth like nikon, and it doesn't have some gold plaque on it saying it's a nikon, but really, build quality is not an issue. If these guys went into the lens and found a bunch of loose screws and such, then sure, bad build quality, but if you look at the outside and base your opinion on build quality due to the different textured exterior, I just think that's waaay too superficial, and you may be missing out on a great lens just because of looks. Plus I like the sigma look, it feels really high quality.
Big companies, like nikon, canon, sigma, tokina, tamron, they all have pretty darn good build quality. If you start dipping into the super discount lenses, then you should be a bit wary.
Unless you see people's lenses falling apart without being mishandled, then sure, build quality. But if you're just going by what people see and feel when they hold a lens, that's not the best.
For Fish tanks, however, I may suggest the Nikon 105 with VR. There's always those times when you want to shoot your fish, or you want to handhold your camera. Sometimes you want to go outside and shoot bugs and flowers, but the VR makes a world of a difference =) I don't have a macro VR yet, but damn I can assure you there are plenty of times I wish I had the VR lens =)
Kinetic
Active member
also remember, if you want 1:1 magnification, your corals will have to be pretty darn close to the glass, within something like 6 inches or so. But that's only if your shots all want to be 1:1, which in my opinion isn't always needed =) If you want to go even further into your tank at 1:1, a 150mm or something may be better. Just throwing out some suggestions.
hyperfocal
New member
Hey Kinetic, thanks for the info, I'll check around in the forums a bit more you don't have to do my legwork for me -- and you know as well as I do that some people *do* want "Waxed ferarri red with sparkling pearl inlay" 
Heck, I want it but I just don't want to pay for it ;-)
I'm glad Sigma is putting out some quality glass. Like I said, I've had problems with them in the past (me, personally. not reviews. not off-hand remarks on forums. me.) but if they're turning their quality around then we all win.
Happy shooting!
Heck, I want it but I just don't want to pay for it ;-)I'm glad Sigma is putting out some quality glass. Like I said, I've had problems with them in the past (me, personally. not reviews. not off-hand remarks on forums. me.) but if they're turning their quality around then we all win.
Happy shooting!
hyperfocal
New member
Wow. I'm way too jittery to hand-hold at that magnification. Coffee and age conspire against me :sad1:
hyperfocal
New member
The only way I could be that steady would be to stop breathing entirely.
Similar threads
