Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 14 posts | 
by Tim Zurowski on Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:10 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I currently own the original non OS Sigma 150 f2.8 Macro. Great lens and very sharp, but not having OS and the very slow AF is an issue for me. Two questions:

1) Does anyone know if the newer Sigma 150 f2.8 OS, OR the newest Sigma 180 f2.8 OS macros have a faster AF motor and faster AF?

2) How good is the OS in these lenses? 

I borrowed a Nikon 105 VR Macro, and while the AF was way better (faster) than my Sigma 150, the VR was not very good; at least, not as good as it is in my 300 f4 PF or the 200-500 VR. I am trying to decide if I want to take the "hit" and get a newer version Sigma macro.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:30 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
1. Macro lenses generally have slower AF for two reasons, the focus throw is insanely long (use the limiter switch - it really helps), and the accuracy required for macro AF requires the system to move slower.
2. It's excellent

Are you actually using AF for Macro? Most go to manual focus for any serious macro work, often with a focusing rail.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:09 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Thanks EJ. Yes, I know that on average Macros have slower AF, but the do still vary. I borrowed a Nikon 200 f4, which was insanely slow, much slower than my Sigma 150. Then I borrowed a Nikon 105 which as actually pretty fast and way faster than both my Sigma 150 and the Nikon 200. In fact it was noticeably faster than both even with the 1.4x on it. So since the 150 OS and the 180 OS are much newer than my 150, my hopes are that they might be faster and closer to the Nikon 105. I could be happy with AF like the Nikon 105, but the Nikon 200 was totally unusable for me, unless I was manually focusing.

Glad to hear the OS is excellent :)
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:12 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
WRT the Sigma 150 f/2.8 OS - I would not call it a speed demon in focusing. Not sure if it is any faster than the lens you have. I ahve owned both but with different mounts and don't really recall feeling that much of a difference.
 

by Mike in O on Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:23 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
My Sigma 150 OS is quite speedy...much faster than my old Minolta 100 f2.8 macro. I am sure cameras have something to do with speed also.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:47 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Yes, obviously cameras have something to do with it, but that is meaningless to my question. ;)  I am talking about lens AF speeds on the same camera body. FWIW, I am using it on a D500. I have sent Sigma Corporation an email asking them. My decision to upgrade is solely based on AF speed improvement over my lens and having OS.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:25 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Also, one person's speedy could be another person's slow, depending on their frame of reference. If you are coming from an old screw drive lens, any ultrasonic motor lens will seem lightning fast. if you are coming from the latest and greatest super tele then any macro lens will likely seem slow.
 

by I Hutchinson on Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:48 pm
I Hutchinson
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3
Joined: 2 Nov 2014
Location: Chandlers Ford, UK
The Nikon 200mm f4 may very well be insanely slow, which is why I use mine in manual mode only, but if image quality is of more importance that af speed then it blows all the others out of the water.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 200-400 f4 VRII, Nikkor 200mm f4 micro, Nikkon 24-70 f2.8
Digital Secretary at Southampton Camera Club and Southampton International Exhibition

http://www.ian-hutchinson.me.uk/
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:40 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I Hutchinson wrote:The Nikon 200mm f4 may very well be insanely slow, which is why I use mine in manual mode only, but if image quality is of more importance that af speed then it blows all the others out of the water.
Absolutely NOT true! First, there are many times when fast AF is a necessity (Hoverflies in flight for example) and manual focus is virtually impossible. Second, my Sigma 150 f2.8 is noticeably sharper than the Nikon 200 f4. It is also smaller and lighter. Third, Nikon's insanely dumb idea to not allow manual/auto AF in the same setting makes the lens unusable for me. I missed dozens (if not hundreds) of shots due to this archaic design. Why Nikon does not update their macros beyond the 105 VR is beyond me! I couldn't get that lens back to the guy I borrowed it from quick enough. I hated it!

For the way I use/need a macro lens, there is only one macro lens made today that will work for me. I would say two, if Sigma had not discontinued the 150 f2.8 OS. The only macro (I know of) that will work on Nikon bodies, has OS, has a tripod collar (absolutely paramount for me) and is 150mm or greater, is the Sigma 180 f.28 OS. If it wasn't $2300 (in Canada) I would have already bought one. ;)
 

by andre paul on Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:12 pm
User avatar
andre paul
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1829
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
the sigma150 macro is a great lens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! has OS , fast focusing , maybe more verstile....

ALL mtf curves i know show that the nikon 200mm f4 is sharper then the sigma. ( you probably used a bad lens )and yes, focus is very slow. the nikon has the excellent close up filters that will take you further then 1x mag ratio. the sigma has no weather sealling if i recall correctly. the nikon works better inside humid rainforest in the long run...

different instruments for different uses.

for my uses, its the nikon, and i only shoot manual ;-)

( i am talking of macro, Tim, i think your use is more in the close - up range, using auto focus etc etc )

regards,
andre.
andre reichmann
**sao paulo-brazil**
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:32 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I shoot both "close up" and "macro". If shooting at minimum focus distance at 1:1 is not macro, then I don't know what is. I also go beyond 1:1 with extension tubes. Point is, a lens at these prices should be versatile and usable for anything. For me the Nikon 200 f4 was very limited and very heavy! The Nikon 200 f4 I used was not a "bad" lens! Even at manual focusing, my Sigma is slightly sharper than the Nikon 200. I seem to remember EJ saying that the Sigma 150 f2.8 was one the sharpest lenses he ever tested, and he tests a lot.  Mind you that is really splitting hairs and both are more than adequate from a sharpness perspective. It was the "blows all the others out of the water" statement that was really not true. ;) I have been a professional shooter for 37 years. I used the Nikon 200 f4 for over a week. If it blew all others out of the water (no idea why he would be using them in the water though) don't you think I would have experienced that? I couldn't wait to get my Sigma back from Sigma Canada. I really liked the AF speed of the 105 VR, but having no tripod collar is a huge deal breaker for me, and I need the 150 to 200 working distance. Nikon either needs to update the 200 f4 with current technologies, or come up with a new 150 VR f2.8 macro. Even then, the Sigma will likely be less expensive and equally as good.

Our rainforests here are equally as wet and humid as down your way (assuming yours are similar to Costa Rica), and I have never had any issues using my Sigma in that regard.
 

by DChan on Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:01 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
I have the Nikon 105 f2.8 macro. Given its size and weight, to me, a tripod collar is not necessary. I have even used it for BIF shots. Sure, it's about time for an update. I would agree that as far as sharpness goes, a lot of time it's splitting hairs.
 

by andre paul on Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:09 pm
User avatar
andre paul
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1829
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
sigma 150mm is a great lens imho !

nikon 200mm is sharper. it does NOT blow others imho ;-) ( i never said that as far as i recall )...

i just think they are different tools, and for some the sigma will definately be the best. not for others though ;-)

i just came in this thread because of your statement that the sigma is noticably sharper then the nikon .... ;-) totally false.

i do think both are great pieces of equipment.

regards.
andre.
andre reichmann
**sao paulo-brazil**
 

by bender16v on Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:43 pm
User avatar
bender16v
Forum Contributor
Posts: 110
Joined: 18 Sep 2012
Location: Brighton, MI
Member #:02125
I decided to update my longer macro lens this year from the Nikon 200mm AI-S. I wanted adequate AF, OS/VR, etc. I ended up getting the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 and I love it. I do use the AF limiter a lot to help speed up the AF. It's not what I would call fast, but not bad. It is a pretty big lens though, especially compared to my other macro lenses (100mm & 60mm) and even the Nikon 300mm PF. I have used it on the D500 and D810 bodies.
-Chris Harrison
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
14 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group