02-07-2011, 03:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2011, 03:26 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1297087853' post='5928']
Hello again. I am looking for your input on a second macro lens for an FF body. I am looking at;
Sigma 105
SIGMA 150 OS
NIKON 105VR
TAMRON 9O AND 180
TOKINA 100
Let me know your experience and recommendations please!! All of them have good optics, but AF precision is not the same. Price is secondary, because the differences are not huge.
Thanks in advance! Vieux Loup
[/quote]
The Sigma 105mm is the odd one out, its optics are a bit less strong than its peers and its AF is not all to precise.
One down <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
The rest is dividable into 2 groups, where you should first decide on which focal length you would find most attractive, either in field of view or in shooting distance. Or both. Personally, I prefer the longer lenses, for the narrow field of view and the resulting blurrier bokeh.
Of the middle focal length group (90-105mm):
The Nikon 105mm is sturdily built, and offers VR. The VR is not very effective at macro distances, but useful when one uses the lens for for instance portraits as a 2nd use. It does not extend, but the front element is exposed, so you should use the lens hood... making it even longer than the Tamron and Tokina which do extend, but do not need a hood due to their very recessed front elements. The most expensive of the group.
The Tamron 90mm is quite a bit less sturdy built, feels light and almost flimsy in comparison. Its main virtue is the rendering, its optics have something special in background rendering. Its other plus is the very refined MF zoom ring feel, the best in its class as far as I know. Slow but accurate to focus, even though mine (Canon mount) loves to hunt even in very good light conditions. When it locks AF in macro distances it is spot on. Gets very contrasty when stopped down.
The Tokina 100mm appears to be inspired by the Tamron in design.. put them next to eachother and the similarity is striking. Build quality is excellent. Optics very good too.
All 3 will serve one well.
The long macros...
both are truly excellent lenses.
The Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DC HSM (I think an OS version is in the works) has very good optics, a very good build and focusses silently. Very popular and loved lens.
The Tamron 180mm f3.5 gives a bit longer focal length. Quite well built for a Tamron, slow AF (all macro lenses are relatively slow to focus though), and great optics.
Question should be, is the sturdy feel of the Sigma more important, ot the bit extra length of the Tamron. Either lens is a jewel.
I can't recommend which focal length to get, as that is totally personal. For myself, I prefer long focal lengths and wide ones to middle ones.
So, of FF I would go for a 35mm lens and extension tubes, a 50mm one (which you have) for normal perspective, and a long lens. Currently I use 200mm on APS-C a lot, which would translate in 320mm on FF. That would mean a 300mm lens + extension tubes for me on full frame, a 300mm lens with no focal length shortening at MFD. For me that would mean a Canon 300mm f4 L IS USM for my close up photos, combined with a 12 and 25mm extension tube.
Hello again. I am looking for your input on a second macro lens for an FF body. I am looking at;
Sigma 105
SIGMA 150 OS
NIKON 105VR
TAMRON 9O AND 180
TOKINA 100
Let me know your experience and recommendations please!! All of them have good optics, but AF precision is not the same. Price is secondary, because the differences are not huge.
Thanks in advance! Vieux Loup
[/quote]
The Sigma 105mm is the odd one out, its optics are a bit less strong than its peers and its AF is not all to precise.
One down <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.The rest is dividable into 2 groups, where you should first decide on which focal length you would find most attractive, either in field of view or in shooting distance. Or both. Personally, I prefer the longer lenses, for the narrow field of view and the resulting blurrier bokeh.
Of the middle focal length group (90-105mm):
The Nikon 105mm is sturdily built, and offers VR. The VR is not very effective at macro distances, but useful when one uses the lens for for instance portraits as a 2nd use. It does not extend, but the front element is exposed, so you should use the lens hood... making it even longer than the Tamron and Tokina which do extend, but do not need a hood due to their very recessed front elements. The most expensive of the group.
The Tamron 90mm is quite a bit less sturdy built, feels light and almost flimsy in comparison. Its main virtue is the rendering, its optics have something special in background rendering. Its other plus is the very refined MF zoom ring feel, the best in its class as far as I know. Slow but accurate to focus, even though mine (Canon mount) loves to hunt even in very good light conditions. When it locks AF in macro distances it is spot on. Gets very contrasty when stopped down.
The Tokina 100mm appears to be inspired by the Tamron in design.. put them next to eachother and the similarity is striking. Build quality is excellent. Optics very good too.
All 3 will serve one well.
The long macros...
both are truly excellent lenses.
The Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DC HSM (I think an OS version is in the works) has very good optics, a very good build and focusses silently. Very popular and loved lens.
The Tamron 180mm f3.5 gives a bit longer focal length. Quite well built for a Tamron, slow AF (all macro lenses are relatively slow to focus though), and great optics.
Question should be, is the sturdy feel of the Sigma more important, ot the bit extra length of the Tamron. Either lens is a jewel.
I can't recommend which focal length to get, as that is totally personal. For myself, I prefer long focal lengths and wide ones to middle ones.
So, of FF I would go for a 35mm lens and extension tubes, a 50mm one (which you have) for normal perspective, and a long lens. Currently I use 200mm on APS-C a lot, which would translate in 320mm on FF. That would mean a 300mm lens + extension tubes for me on full frame, a 300mm lens with no focal length shortening at MFD. For me that would mean a Canon 300mm f4 L IS USM for my close up photos, combined with a 12 and 25mm extension tube.