Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: sigma 150mm macro  (Read 3259 times)

griffithimage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
sigma 150mm macro
« on: September 22, 2009, 10:29:06 am »

Hi, does anyone have any experience with the sigma 150 macro? How does it compare with the canon 100 macro? I haven't ever dealt with sigma before, should I believe the hype that their lenses are as good as canons?

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
sigma 150mm macro
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2009, 11:39:01 am »

I have a Sigma 105 macro, which I bought in Tokyo in the summer of 98. It's extremely sharp, and produces fewer aberrations and distortions than any Canon lens I own (all zooms, except for the 50 f/1.4). I'm told more recent versions are even sharper, and have Sigma's newer coatings (designed to reduce flare from sensor reflection or something). It has very solid metal construction, and I like the feel of the crinkly black finish.

About the only negative thing I have to say about it is that it has a slow, noisy focus motor, but that's pretty standard for any macro lens due to the very wide-range helical for focusing. If I shot macro a lot, I might be inclined to get the Canon, just to ensure future compatability. But I don't, so I feel the Sigma was a good buy. Besides, Canon hadn't yet made a fast 100 macro at that point.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 11:40:44 am by Misirlou »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
sigma 150mm macro
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2009, 11:51:41 am »

Quote from: Misirlou
I have a Sigma 105 macro ... About the only negative thing I have to say about it is that it has a slow, noisy focus motor ...
The Sigma 150 macro has the advantage of an HSM focusing motor (Sigma's name for ring-style, ultrasonic motors) which the Sigma 105 does not, so focusing should be better.

I too am curious about the Sigma macro lenses, as I am looking for a long macro (in 4/3 mount.)
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
sigma 150mm macro
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2009, 12:49:02 pm »

Quote from: BJL
The Sigma 150 macro has the advantage of an HSM focusing motor (Sigma's name for ring-style, ultrasonic motors) which the Sigma 105 does not, so focusing should be better.

That should certainly improve the noise, but I suspect it won't make focus a whole lot quicker. You want a really long focus throw on a macro lens so that you have very precise manual focus control. That necessarily works against speed. Sometimes people will recommend using a macro lens for portraits. My concern with doing so is that I think I'd want a real speed-demon focus action for portraits, but I'm sure others have different techniques and approaches.

Wouldn't a 150 macro work out to an equivalent of 300mm on a 4/3rds camera? That's very, very long. Probably pretty hard to stabilize, even on a tripod.
Logged

EdRosch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
sigma 150mm macro
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2009, 01:50:19 pm »

I have both lenses.  I would comment that, with the new stabilized 100 Canon macro announced, I'd most likely wait for it.

That said,  the Canon 100 is the sharpest lens that I've got.  The Sigma is quite sharp and focuses well, but......... there is noticeable vignetting at the corners when shooting large evenly lit subjects like sky.  

More importantly,  Sigma has both quality control issues and if the lens has a problem, it's a nightmare to get it fixed.  I only own two Sigma's, the macro and a 120-400.  When the AF failed on the tele, I sent it back to Sigma and it was almost four months before I saw my lens again.  Based on this and other's experiences that I've since read online (here's a link to a Rental Company's experience)  I have decided that I've bought my last Sigma.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
sigma 150mm macro
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2009, 02:32:03 pm »

Quote from: Misirlou
Wouldn't a 150 macro work out to an equivalent of 300mm on a 4/3rds camera? That's very, very long.
Maybe; that is why both the 105 and 150 are on my short list.

However, at macro distances, the relationship between focal length and image coverage gets a bit complicated, so that in effect 150mm in 4/3 is like about 200-225mm in 35mm for 1:1 macro work, as far as working distance when filling the frame with the same subject.

Example: to fill the 35mm frame with a subject 36mm wide, you use 1:1 magnification, m=1, while with a 4/3" sensor, you want an image half as large, 1:2 magnification, m=1/2. The working distance (subject to front of lens) is
working distance = (focal length)*(1+1/m),
so
working distance = 3*(focal length) for 1:2 (m=1/2)
working distance = 2*(focal length) for 1:1 (m=1)
working distance = 1.5*(focal length) for 2:1 (m=2)
In that situation of "1:1 equivalent", the "35mm equivalent focal length for equal working distance and field size" is only a factor 3/2 greater:
- the 150mm in 4/3 format gives working distance of 450mm, the same as with f=225mm in 35mm format
- the 105mm in 4/3 format gives working distance of 325mm, the same as with f=163mm in 35mm format
With even smaller subjects, needing 1:1 in 4/3" format, 2:1 in 35mm format, the ratio is down to 4/3, so
- 105mm with 4/3" like 140mm with 35mm
- 150mm with 4/3" like 200mm with 35mm

Since 180mm and 200mm are popular in high end macro lenses for 35mm format, those equivalents are not out of line.

I have done near macro work with my 50-200 at 200mm, and a bean-bag for low level stabilization.


And for non-macro work, a reasonably bright (if slow focusing!) 300mm equivalent is attractive. My nature photography often jumps between "small" and "distant" subjects.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 02:34:51 pm by BJL »
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
sigma 150mm macro
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2009, 04:48:25 pm »

See here:

http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

Optically the Sigma lenses are decent but I am not convinced. I used to own a Tamron 90mm F2.8 AF macro lens in Nikon mount but I sold it as it does not have the  'bite' of Nikon macro lenses. It is as sharp if not sharper but image quality is more than resolution.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up