Macro Lens Comparison (for Wildlife Photography)

[John Koerner]

Single-shot, natural light, "fleeting moment," true nature photos with the Sigma 180 APO macro (taken last year with the Canon 7D) ...

I hope to get even better results this year with my new Nikon D810 ...







Jack

[John Koerner]

I had the chance to play a bit with the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 APO on the D810.

Those aren't macro images, but the lens is very sweet for generic shooting too!







Cheers,
Bernard

No disrespect, but anyone could take shots like that.

The point of this particular thread topic is macro lenses for wildlife nature photography.

Standing there taking photos of immobile asphalt, iron gates, and corrugated steel doesn't qualify.

The real question is, what do you do with that lens in nature?

Aside from the granted (static) image quality, what do you do when you have a tiny subject land (or present itself), for a fleeting moment, on a hike?

• Do you have a tripod collar, so you can you instantly-compose your shot? Nope.
• Do you have a truly-optimal working distance? Nope.
• Can you depress the shutter and achieve instant AF (before it's too late)? Nope.
• Can you pop the camera off the tripod, and handhold, with the back up of OS? Nope.

These are questions nature photographers want to know.

Therefore, while I congratulate you on the new lens, the way to evaluate it for this thread topic (Macro Nature Photography), is not to take random shots of large, inanimate objects on the street ... but to go on a long hike, far away from the comforts of home, and try to take 1:1 (or thereabouts) photos of live, fleeting, and random opportunities of the flora and (even more difficult) fauna ... and then post your findings here

Jack

[muntanela]

For the last two years I've been shooting wild alpine flowers with a 100 mm MF. The real challenge is the wind. Here are some shots of the king of the alpine flowers: Ranunculus glacialis L., on a windy pass at 2545 m. To protect the flowers from the wind, I built a little stone wall. A guy I met there, feeling compassion for me, tried even to protect them with his jacket... Not very good photos, but I still feel the wind on my face, this is for me the real meaning of this photographs (the second one is a bizarre looking stack of three photos.)

[John Koerner]

For the last two years I've been shooting wild alpine flowers with a 100 mm MF. The real challenge is the wind. Here are some shots of the king of the alpine flowers: Ranunculus glacialis L., on a windy pass at 2545 m. To protect the flowers from the wind, I built a little stone wall. A guy I met there, feeling compassion for me, tried even to protect them with his jacket... Not very good photos, but I still feel the wind on my face, this is for me the real meaning of this photographs (the second one is a bizarre looking stack of three photos.)

Thanks for sharing. (Love mountain flower pics )

I really liked the middle image ...

Flowers are a bit handier for shooting wildlife with MF ... and, I agree, wind can be troublesome regardless of what you're shooting.

Here are a couple of flower shots I got with the Sigma 180:







(Clicking on the image allows you to see the conditions under which each was taken )

The last one was a stack, that didn't come out so great, precisely because of the wind 

Jack

[BernardLanguillier]

The point of this particular thread topic is macro lenses for wildlife nature photography.

Well, this thread appears to be about macro lenses above all, right?

Since I believe that many owners of macro lenses also use these lenses for other purposes, I feel that feedback about how useful a lens is for general work may come handy as one decision criteria.

I know for a fact that I have always used my macro lenses (Zeiss 100mm f2 till now) both as a stitching lens for distant landscape and as a macro lens when a macro opportunity shows up.

Is there really a need to try to shut up all the photographers who are not only into hard core macro work?

Cheers,
Bernard

[NancyP]

The joy of 180mm macro comes when shooting darn near wide open - bokehlicious. John K.'s skipper on thistle illustrates this well. You can see the color blob in the background and know it is another thistle, but it isn't otherwise recognizable. Most of the effect is due to the generous focal length. For close ups in the 1:4 to 1:3 range, I bet that a lot of people are trying out the new Canon 100-400 at 400(or using the old 300 f/4). And yes, you can use macro lenses to shoot non-macro - I might not choose to use them for sports or birds in flight, the AF is necessarily slower. (In the case of the Voigtlander, v-e-r-y slow, ie, not there. But it is fine for manual focus general use as long as one isn't racking back from 1:1 to infinity.). But the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and corresponding Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 have been popular for a long time as general-use lenses. No, not as fabulous as one of the really fast portrait lenses for bokeh - but useful.

[John Koerner]

Well, this thread appears to be about macro lenses above all, right?

Not so.

The distinction made at the opening post, and pretty much every page throughout, was macro lenses for wildlife photography.

Since I believe that many owners of macro lenses also use these lenses for other purposes, I feel that feedback about how useful a lens is for general work may come handy as one decision criteria.

True, but absolutely off-topic.

People use wide-angles also but, again, this has nothing to do with the topic.

I know for a fact that I have always used my macro lenses (Zeiss 100mm f2 till now) both as a stitching lens for distant landscape and as a macro lens when a macro opportunity shows up.

I have used many macro lenses for portraits, etc., but here again this is off-topic.

Is there really a need to try to shut up all the photographers who are not only into hard core macro work?
Cheers,
Bernard

It seems very difficult to keep people on point.

We have one guy confusing science with nature.
We have another posting photos of gates and asphalt.
At one point, telephoto lenses were discussed.
Next thing we know, someone is going to say how their Canon 800 mm super-telephoto renders photos.

There are many good lenses; there are many kinds of lenses; there are many sub-categories of similar lenses within a range (studio vs. street, etc.).

The subject of this thread is the best macro lenses for wildlife ... so, while I wouldn't be so rude as to tell you to "shut up" Bernard (lol), I can remind you of the thread-topic, point out how your images have nothing to do with it, and respectfully encourage you to try sharing photos with your lens ... within the topic

Jack

PS: And none of these images are "hardcore macro work" (except in the middle of p. 5)

[BernardLanguillier]

The subject of this thread is the best macro lenses for wildlife ... so, while I wouldn't be so rude as to tell you to "shut up" Bernard (lol), I can remind you of the thread-topic, point out how your images have nothing to do with it, and respectfully encourage you to try sharing photos with your lens ... within the topic

Jack,

OK, apologies, this is your thread, I won't do it again.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

The joy of 180mm macro comes when shooting darn near wide open - bokehlicious. John K.'s skipper on thistle illustrates this well. You can see the color blob in the background and know it is another thistle, but it isn't otherwise recognizable. Most of the effect is due to the generous focal length. For close ups in the 1:4 to 1:3 range, I bet that a lot of people are trying out the new Canon 100-400 at 400(or using the old 300 f/4). And yes, you can use macro lenses to shoot non-macro - I might not choose to use them for sports or birds in flight, the AF is necessarily slower. (In the case of the Voigtlander, v-e-r-y slow, ie, not there. But it is fine for manual focus general use as long as one isn't racking back from 1:1 to infinity.). But the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and corresponding Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 have been popular for a long time as general-use lenses. No, not as fabulous as one of the really fast portrait lenses for bokeh - but useful.

We agree on a lot, Nancy

(Bokehlicious, lol, I will have to remember that )

The ability to be versatile was part of what my original criteria was in my rating system ... in fact, versatility in one macro lens to take with you on a day's wildlife journey was the central theme of my rating system.

Trying to find the macro lens that has the reach, the image quality, the build quality ... plus the modern amenities of excellent AF/IS, etc. ... all under one cover ... to handle as many situations as possible ... and to do it at a very high level.

After 7 pages of discussion, I still maintain that #s 1 and 2 remain in their rightful place

Jack

[Michael Erlewine]

I guess since this thread is labelled “Macro Lens Comparison,” I will just have to actually compare some lenses, but really you meant just that one lens, the Sigma 180mm macro. I managed to find a used copy of the Sigma 180mm APO lens that you reviewed for a reasonable price, so I have ordered it and will check it out.

If it is that good then it may replace my Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR for action shooting and, perhaps, be useful for other things as well.

My fear, from studying the many MTF charts online, is that it is a little soft wide-open for a lot of my work. I don’t mind heaviness in a lens and, of course, I like the rotating collar.

I do have questions as to how well-corrected it is, and its “micro-contrast,” but I will check that out.

I wish you had labelled your thread “Macro Lens Comparison for Wildlife Photography." You do make that clear eventually, but your first post looked to me like it was just comparing macro lenses, starting with one that you happen to use for wildlife.

[John Koerner]

I guess since this thread is labelled “Macro Lens Comparison,” I will just have to actually compare some lenses, but really you meant just that one lens, the Sigma 180mm macro. I managed to find a used copy of the Sigma 180mm APO lens that you reviewed for a reasonable price, so I have ordered it and will check it out.

I am sincerely interested in your opinion.

If it is that good then it may replace my Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR for action shooting and, perhaps, be useful for other things as well.

It will definitely beat that one ...

My fear, from studying the many MTF charts online, is that it is a little soft wide-open for a lot of my work. I don’t mind heaviness in a lens and, of course, I like the rotating collar.

For your specific purposes, I don't believe it will out-do the Voightlander (in fact, I plan on following your recommendations and purchasing a Voightlander for stack-work).

However, as a rugged, go-to, VERY high-quality, multi-dimensional, wildlife macro lens, I think you will be pleased with the Sigma 180 APO

I do have questions as to how well-corrected it is, and its “micro-contrast,” but I will check that out.

I will defer to your expertise on that, and expect the Sigma 180 f/2.8 APO to fall somewhat short of the Voightlander f/2.5 APO in this area ... but not by too much ... same as I am 100% confident the Sigma will do things that the Voightlander will not (cannot) do, out in the field ... which is why I attempted to draw the distinction.

I wish you had labelled your thread “Macro Lens Comparison for Wildlife Photography." You do make that clear eventually, but your first post looked to me like it was just comparing macro lenses, starting with one that you happen to use for wildlife.

I made it clear in my opening line actually ... but I edited the main thread heading so there would be no more confusion

Cheers,

Jack

[John Koerner]

Jack,

I believe that you will be pleased with the D810.

Even today, one year and a half after its availability, I am still awed by the files, especially at base ISO.

Cheers,
Bernard

I have to echo this sentiment as well.

I have only played with the D810 at this point, but already the image-quality makes my old Canon 7D seem like a toy compared to truly precision equipment

I am reading the manual, and learning how to use a Nikon, and hope to post some photos of the Nikon D810 + Sigma 180 after the weekend

[Michael Erlewine]

The Nikon D810 is by far the best camera I have ever owned. In particular, the true ISO 64 and the fact that LiveView can be used for fine focus, but it use a LOT of batteries if you use LiveView, which I do all the time.

As for the CV-125, the best lensmen I know value it not only for close-up and 1:1, but also for mid-range and landscape. It is sharp all the way out and the color and bokeh are wonderful. However, I warn you that the D810 will cause you to reevaluate all your lenses. I had to. And it is very-well corrected and has a draw unique to it IMO. The Zeiss Otus lenses are the best, but the CV-125 is the best all-around macro lens, unless you need auto-focus.

[John Koerner]

The Nikon D810 is by far the best camera I have ever owned. In particular, the true ISO 64 and the fact that LiveView can be used for fine focus, but it use a LOT of batteries if you use LiveView, which I do all the time.

I can see that.

The bokeh and resolution in the few "play" images I've taken with the corresponding-new Sigma are incredible.

I try to use LiveView whenever possible, and ordered extra batteries too (based on your tip), so thanks.

As for the CV-125, the best lensmen I know value it not only for close-up and 1:1, but also for mid-range and landscape. It is sharp all the way out and the color and bokeh are wonderful.

I have no doubt of this.

The distinction I made was being "quick on the draw," while maintaining excellent image quality.

The Sigma 180 may not (quite) match the Zeiss or the Voightlander in resolution, etc. ... but it's in the ballpark ... while offering amenities (reach, AF, IS/VR, tripod collar, weather sealing) that none of these "high-res" lenses even have.

I guess the best way to put it is, NO OTHER modern macro lens (that does have AF/IS) has the same quality or reach of the Sigma lens.

The only lenses that have (slightly) better image quality, like the Voightlander, do NOT have any of the amenities of the Sigma AT ALL (no tripod collar, no AF, no IS/VR, and not the reach).

Therefore, while in static environments, these lenses may offer slightly better image quality ... in challenging, rapidly-changing environments these precision lenses offer NOTHING ... while the Sigma offers everything.

This is distinction I was trying to underscore ...

However, I warn you that the D810 will cause you to reevaluate all your lenses. I had to. And it is very-well corrected and has a draw unique to it IMO.

Lol, well, I only have 2 Nikon-compatible lenses at the moment

However, I believe the D810 makes the Sigma all the more desirable ... the smoothness/bokeh is incredible (will share photos soon!)

The Zeiss Otus lenses are the best, but the CV-125 is the best all-around macro lens, unless you need auto-focus.

Well, the Sigma 180 offers more than just AF ...

The simple fact is, wildlife macro shooting often calls for the instant rotation of a tripod collar ... longer reach ... AF (yes) ... image-stabilization (if forced to hand-hold) ... weather-sealing (when it starts drizzling), etc.

It's not just about image quality (which the Sigma has in spades) ... it's also the amenities ... every single amenity currently possible ... in back of very high image quality (rather than ZERO amenities, should challenging circumstances arise )

Jack

[John Koerner]

Found another article which articulated my sentiments exactly:

F-Stoppers:

"When testing, I didn’t just want to keep this beautiful beast of a lens in the studio. I wanted to take it into the real world, lug it around, and see how it performed in various light and environmental situations ...

"What was most admirable about the auto focus is that it rarely found the need to focus all the way in, then all the way out, then back in to where it was close to being sharp. When lenses do that, it irritates me to no end. Luckily, the lens is high enough quality to hover around the focus point and find it without shooting around willy nilly through the whole focus range of the lens. Anger and frustration curtailed ...

"The next day in broad daylight, I tested the auto focus again and it was snappy, accurate, and silent. Perfect.

"The manual focus is smooth quiet, and very precise. These are all features that matter in a lens, and the Sigma nails every one.

"In all my tests, there was absolutely zero vignetting at any aperture- yet another plus. If I want a vignette, I can add it in post.

"What I like:
Fast, quiet, responsive auto focus
Super sharp across all apertures
Shows gorgeous detail
Has a sturdy and well-built feel
Opens wide to f/2.8
 
"What I dislike:
At 3.5 pounds, it’s pretty heavy (Boo hoo. I’ll get over it. )
It can struggle with auto focus in low light situations
 
...

"I love this lens. It can help me create some stunningly beautiful wildlife photos, which is exactly what a lens like this is designed to handle. When shooting with the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 macro, I was not thinking about the lens, but about my subjects. That is the core difference between a lens I love, and a lens I loathe."

Hope this clarifies ...

Jack

[Michael Erlewine]

Just as you look forward to my experience with the Sigma 180mm APO Macro lens, I look forward to your getting to know the Nikon D810 in conjunction with the Sigma 180mm APO. When I first got the Nikon D800E (and of course the D810), I stopped using a great many lenses that I had always used because the camera shows up all the flaws in a lens. Aside from the amenities, which I don't care that much about, what I do care about in a lens is correction, sharpness, speed, and sharpness wide-open. Anyway, it will be interesting. 

[Michael Erlewine]

While I am waiting for my copy of the Sigma 180mm APO macro to arrive, I revisited your review of the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO and I have a couple of suggestions as to what I would be looking for in a review that are not there.

I would want to know how well corrected the lens is in some detail, along with MTF charts, so I could see how sharp the lens is wide-open, and where any drop-off sets in, etc.

You quote figures from www.lenscore.org. I can’t find where Lenscore points out how they arrive at their figures, individually, so that concerns me. Putting that aside, here are some Lenscore stats that I would want to look for in lenses. I chose the Sigma 180 that you reviewed, the very highly rated Zeiss Otus 85mm, and the classic Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar as examples.

I will immediately put aside their Total Score for a lens because each of us would arrive at weighting probably differently from Lenscore, and the Sigma 180 does not rate that high comparatively anyway.

I would want to look at Chromatic Aberration, however, because one of the reasons I don’t use my copy of the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar is the abundance of CR with that lens. I see that the Sigma has even more CR than the Zeiss 100mm, so that is troubling.

I see that the Sigma has good sharpness, reasonable bokeh, but not great contrast, color, and some amount of distortion.

Of course, all these numbers have to be tested by actually using the lens, which is what I am doing by purchasing one, after reading your recommendation. I always have to see for myself. And your particular list of lens “amenities” differs from mine, so that parameter can’t be used to dignify a particular lens, except for our particular requirements, which I understand. I have my own list of what I “must have,” which I see are different from yours, etc.

So here is what I come up with. I understand, if I have Lenscore right, that lower numbers are worse and higher numbers are better:

                          LaCa LoCa Resolve Contrast
Zeiss Otus 85mm 1472 1853 1647     1469
Zeiss MP 100         931   895 1189     1087
Sigma 180mm       839   968 1078     1017


                          Bokeh Color  Distort Total
Zeiss Otus 85mm 1729   1127  1034   1459
Zeiss MP 100       1062     951  1066   1033
Sigma 180mm     1050     964    995     982

The numbers for the Sigma are not totally encouraging IMO, but they do seem to bear out your what you like about the lens. My guess is that I will find this lens, for my work, sharp, with good bokeh, but sub-par when it comes to correction, contrast, and color. I will let you know when I have had a chance to use the lens. Thanks for pointing it out. I had ignored it up to now because of the reasons just mentioned, but it does sound convenient to use for some tasks.

[Chris Livsey]

In this comparison lower numbers are better, IMO!!

Zeiss Otus 85mm  £2,999
Sigma 180mm       £1,099
Zeiss MP*100mm  £1,168

* Now as Milvus variant, older available still same price give or take (£1,299 quoted)

Now I know being at the cutting/bleeding edge is an expensive place to be but buying the Sigma AND the Zeiss MP and having £700+ left  means that Otus has to be special, and those performance figures are compelling, but, are the "conveniences" of the Sigma worth more than outright performance?
I understand the VR argument, but there are writers who argue that does loose the last drop of performance optically, that getting the shot at all outweighs a "better" technical shot missed completely, that seems to be a powerful argument on one side of the thread, understandably, and I do appreciate that. So are we saying the Voigtlander, good as it is but almost being listed under Unobtanium, is bettered anyway by the Otus in a studio/garden/controlled enviroment?

Could I add:
Otus    1:7.7
Milvus  1:2
Sigma   1:1
 

[Michael Erlewine]

...but, are the "conveniences" of the Sigma worth more than outright performance?

So are we saying the Voigtlander, good as it is but almost being listed under Unobtanium, is bettered anyway by the Otus in a studio/garden/controlled enviroment?

Not in my book. Outright performance is what I value. I have little interest in VR and I don’t trust it. I don’t need it.

The idea that CV-125 is unattainable is not really true anymore. There are CV-125s available on Ebay right now for $1999, $1750, $1919, and still others. That is no excuse any longer.

I also vigorously disagree that lenses like the Otus or even the Voigtlander are for “studio/garden/controlled environment.” LOL. That may be true for some folks, but to me that is just one more view that IMO is a smokescreen.

I have used the CV-125 in the field, on bogs, on mountains, in the wild, etc., mostly on a tripod or a monopod or a gimbal. And I have photographed flying insects as well by using higher apertures and patience. The same with the Otus series from Zeiss.

In good weather, when it is calm out and the Michigan wind is not blowing, I am out in the yard, in the neighborhood, in the parks, but also in the fields, streams, meadowlands, and bogs with hip boots and these lenses, albeit on a tripod.

To say that I am not a “wildlife” photographer because I also like studio work, careful composition, and all of that is ridiculous. Like many of us, I do all of it, as best and as often as I can. I agree with Jack, that we don’t mess with wildlife. I don’t’ refrigerate or in any way interfere with critters. I have worked actively in our area to rehabilitate and release wounded wildlife.

I have been doing this intensely since I was six years old and was taking good photos since I was 14-years old. I have hiked the mountains of Tibet, crashed through the jungles of Nepal, as well as India, etc.

I respect nature more than I respect society and have learned more from nature’s laws than from all the lawyers and society’s laws put together.

However, I don’t conflate fieldwork with studio work in a negative comparison. Neither is superior to the other, just different. Each is just what it is. They are not opposites or competitors.

In recent years I have become less interested in field-guide nature photography and more interested in studying lenses, composition, lighting, and studio work. I can’t wait for the ice and snow to melt and get out in the woods and fields. I am happy to be sharing ideas with other photographers on a thread like this, but the opinion that I am not a nature photographer (as they define it) and a ticket will get you a ride on the bus.

[John Koerner]

Michael, this is silly.

The Otus doesn't belong in the discussion, since it's not a macro lens 

Hell, the Otus rates higher than the Canon 600 mm too, but can it do what the 600mm does? (Answer: no).

You keep deviating from the point, even the whole thread topic.

No, the Sigma 180 mm is not the "best" lens in every possible scenario.

However (and pay close attention here) it is the best, most well-rounded wildlife macro lens option.

Again, the Otus doesn't belong in the discussion (slap several inches of extension tubes on it, to get true 1:1, and then tell me what its marks are ...).

Now, regarding the Milvus/Zeiss macro, as I said the Sigma 180 is very close, optically, which it is.

Resolution:
Zeiss: 1204
Sigma: 1078

Color:
Zeiss: 986
Sigma: 964

Contrast:
Zeiss: 1111
Sigma: 1017

Bokeh:
Zeiss: 1057
Sigma: 1050

All you did was throw the Otus in here to confuse the issue.

Sticking to actual macro lenses, you chose not to paint the FULL picture of the differences

How about true 1:1 magnification (to even qualify as a macro lens)?

Sigma 180: Yes.
Zeiss: Nope.

How about AF if you need it?

Sigma: Yes.
Zeiss: Nope.

How about IS if needed?

Sigma: Yes.
Zeiss: Nope.

How about weather sealing (for those who actually venture outside the studio)?

Sigma: Yes.
Zeiss: Nope.

The Sigma will simply get you shots that you'll miss with the Zeiss.
And the shots that you do get with the Zeiss will not be any better than those from the Sigma.

Optically, the Zeiss may enjoy a slight edge, but the Sigma is very comparable.
Functionally, in preparation for every possible wildlife situation a macro shooter might encounter, the Sigma blows the Zeiss out of the water, it isn't even a contest.

The Sigma is a fully-equipped instrument, while the Zeiss is bare, stripped, and unarmed.

And then, if you slap an extension tube onto the Zeiss, to make it a true 1:1, it isn't even as good as the Sigma anymore either.

That is about as clear as I can be.

Jack