Sigma 105mm EX for Nikon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ?, Apr 18, 2004.

  1. ?

    ? Guest

    Can someone please give me an opinion on this lens.
    It costs about the same price as Nikkor 60mm, and
    what do you think about that comparison?
    Thanks
     
    ?, Apr 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. What kind of choice is this? 60mm versus 105mm? The Nikkor Micro 105mm
    f/2.8D is of course much better than the Sigma 105mm EX.

    Is it because you really want 105mm, but can only afford the Sigma in 105mm?
    $360 versus $530, isn't trivial, but you'll probably be unhappy with the
    Sigma; the difference is very noticable, from the reviews I've read.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Apr 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. And in fact the Sigma 105mm EX is not so very different, at full macro
    1:1, from the Nikon 60mm. The reason is that the Sigma uses internal
    focusing to achieve macro; it is really a kind of zoom lens which
    changes focal length as it focuses (technically, it acts as a varifocal
    linked to the focusing mechanism).

    I can't remember the exact figure, but we found when testing the 105mm
    Macro that it became equal to an 80mm or thereabouts at closest focus.
    However, there is a small bonus - the aperture does not lose as much
    light, less than the normal 2 stops for 1:1 work. There is a downside,
    which is that your working distance for insects etc is not as great as a
    simple macro anastigmat (Tessar type modified) lens unit in a focusing
    mount would allow.

    The Sigma is a decent lens, and also serves well for small product
    photography where the perspective is better than a 60mm, though if you
    are using a 1.5X digital sensor factor, the 60mm might be a wiser
    choice. With a suitable SF filter the 105mm EX is not bad for portraits
    but I would hesitate to use it 'direct' (same with any macro lens) on
    film. Digital, again, it doesn't really matter since a lot of soft focus
    can be tackled in photo editing, no filters needed.

    David
    http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
     
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 19, 2004
    #3
  4. ?

    ? Guest

    Maybe it is because I can´t afford the Nikkor 105, and I want to buy a macro
    lens
    for my Nikon F80. And it is all about that I want to buy a macro lens. It is
    not
    a choice between 60 and 105, it is a choice between macro lenses in the same
    price.
    The Nikkor 105 is about 1200$ where I live, and Sigma 105 is about 600$ same
    as the Nikkor 60. Normally I would never buy Sigma, but this is too much
    expensive
    lens for me and I need other opinions. So I think I will go for 60mm Nikkor
    optics.
     
    ?, Apr 19, 2004
    #4
  5. ?

    ? Guest

    Yes, well I am working on a film, and for my digital photography I use
    coolpix 5700.
    I will try to get a hand on 105 sigma, and to shoot a couple of photos, to
    see what do I get.
    Or maybe I´ll rob a gas station and buy the Nikkor 105 lens : )
    What is your opinion on that lens by the way? (Micro-Nikkor 105mm D f2.8 AF
    lens A)
    Regards
    Tom
     
    ?, Apr 19, 2004
    #5
  6. ?

    Lung Fish Guest

    I have the 60/2.8 non-D version, and it has incredible output. The crop
    factor on the dSLRs makes it a usable portrait lens as well (90mm with
    2.8). In fact, I may sell this one and get the new D version.
     
    Lung Fish, Apr 19, 2004
    #6
  7. ?

    Gutzi Guest

    I don't agree with Steven at all: I HAVE GOT the SIGMA 105 EX (for
    Canon, but I don' think it'll be much different to the Nikon) and it's
    definitely one of the best lenses in this range! BTW, which reviews did
    you read: those I've read (german photo magazines) ascribe the SIGMA
    best results and this conforms to my experience!

    Gutzi
     
    Gutzi, Apr 19, 2004
    #7
  8. George Preddy, Apr 19, 2004
    #8
  9. Not used it, but as far as i know it is a true macro focusing (not
    internal focusing) lens similar to the 100mm f2.8 Minolta AF macro which
    I use.

    It would amazing if it was anything short of excellent given Nikon quality.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 19, 2004
    #9
  10. ?

    Tom Monego Guest

    I've used all 3 Nikon macros they are all excellent, I wouldn't be surprised
    if the 105 is the best in it's class, just tack sharp. Haven't used the Sigma
    their EX lenses seem to be good lenses, just their build quality sucks. You
    may want to look at the Tamron 90, again not as good as the Nikkor but a
    decent lens. Why not check for a used Nikkor, very little can damage a fixed
    focal length lens (short of dropping it). Where do you live that the lenses
    are so clostly?

    Tom
     
    Tom Monego, Apr 19, 2004
    #10
  11. Nikons are better than Canon L because Canon L glass is so fragile,
    but neither optically compete well with Sigmas pro line, which is much
    sharper and generally better built. Both Canon and Nikon are so
    ridiculously expensive for the so-so optical quality, that savvy pro
    buyers don't even consider them.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 20, 2004
    #11
  12. Recent Sigma EX glass is much better optically than anything else
    being made today. Savvy pros don't even consider buying Canon or
    Nikon glass because their opticas are so poor for the outrageous
    pricetags, on value, they are truly terrible.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 20, 2004
    #12
  13. Recent Sigma EX glass is much better optically than anything else
    being made today. Savvy pros don't even consider buying Canon or
    Nikon glass because their opticas are so poor for the outrageous
    pricetags, on value, they are truly terrible.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 20, 2004
    #13
  14. Recent Sigma EX glass is much better optically than anything else
    being made today. Savvy pros don't even consider buying Canon or
    Nikon glass because their opticas are so poor for the outrageous
    pricetags, on value, they are truly terrible.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 20, 2004
    #14
  15. Nikons are better than Canon L because Canon L glass is so fragile,
    but neither optically compete well with Sigmas pro line, which is much
    sharper and generally better built. Both Canon and Nikon are so
    ridiculously expensive for the so-so optical quality, that savvy pro
    buyers don't even consider them.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 20, 2004
    #15
  16.  
    Steven M. Scharf, Apr 20, 2004
    #16
  17. ?

    Crownfield Guest

    OH MY GOD !!

    what an ass.
    completely out of touch with the real world.
    pros buy quality, not sigma.

    you buy sigma.
     
    Crownfield, Apr 20, 2004
    #17
  18. ?

    ? Guest

    I am definitely going for quality, and I am not going to buy anything,
    unless I consider it a great, sharp lens. I´ve heard about Tamron,
    but I did not see any results from that lens. And I live in Croatia.
    This are the prices:
    Nikkor 105 = 900$
    Sigma 105 = 600$

    I wanted to get macro and portrait lens in one.
    regards
     
    ?, Apr 20, 2004
    #18
  19. The Nikon 105's casing is all pastic, which is completely unacceptable
    for pro work--Sigma's 105 casing is all steel.

    The Nikon 105 gets really trashed for its bad bokeh and very poor
    non-macro focusing discrimination, the Sigma 105 EX macro is a much
    better lens all around, and a better value by leaps and bounds.

    Both these lenses have very long focusing throws suited to macro work,
    so be ready for that either way. Bottomline, if you want only a macro
    lens that is very cheaply built, the Nikon might be okay if you'd
    rather waste your money on plastic, if you need a pro quality portrait
    lens as well, the only choice is the Sigma EX.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 21, 2004
    #19
  20. George, the sigma casing is NOT ALL STEEL.

    It certainly uses some alloy and some composites. However, steel it is
    not. Metal, but not steel!

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 21, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.