Is The Extra Worth It ?

[monkeyleader]

So I'm finally decided on getting myself a macro lens and I've come down to two choices.

Sigma 105mm f2.8
Sigma 150mm f2.8

Would be paired with my 40D.

The 150mm is about £160 more expensive and I was just wondering is it worth the extra cost?

Now I know I'll only be starting out on the Macro route, but as with most of my lens choices I expect them to last, even beyond the life of the body.

I'm looking at typical macro stuff (insects and flowers) as well as some abstract stuff. (and yes I know, not particularly the best time of year to be thinking about getting into Macro photography)

Any comments?

TIA,

Nige

[Mike.P®]

Put it this way, I do a LOT of macro photography with my Pentax K10D and am currently using 2 manual focus lenses purely while I wait for the 150mm to come out with the Pentax mount. (I have a feeling I am in for a long wait).
You need as much distance between you and the subject if you want to do bugs, flowers and such like not so much.
The 150mm has the added advantage of being compatible with the Sigma 1.4x and 2x teleconverters so you can match them up at a later date and have a useful 220mm/300mm which will still give you excellent quality at the cost of a stop or two.

Of course, there is always the Sigma 180mm f3.5

[richard plumb]

as a macro, they are probably similar. You get some extra working distance which may be useful to you, but probably not £160 worth.

Best to consider what else you might use them for, and how their focal lengths will fit with your current lineup. Eg if you have an 85mm, then maybe the 105 is too close so the 150 would be more usable as a longer prime? Or vice versa if you have something like a nice 135 or 200 prime, then the 105 might be a better fit.



I'm a bit in this boat - having just bought the 85mm 1.8, my 60mm is feeling a little close. Originally bought as a macro that can double up as a portrait lens, the portrait part is now covered by the 85. So i'm thinking to get something else. If only they did a 135 macro, that'd be perfect I think I'm leaning towards the 150, as its the longest 2.8 and should do nicely to help me resist a 70-200 2.8

[godfarter]

Originally Posted by monkeyleader

Sigma 105mm f2.8

I personally own the Sigma 105mm f2.8 for quite a while now and it was recommended to me by my camera shop guy as a great beginner lens if you want to foray into macro photography.

I've spent the past 2 summers photographing flowers with it, but i've grown to especially love shooting people/inanimate objects with it as well - depth of field is superb in my opinion

i guess if you want to jump in at the deep end then go for the 180mm otherwise you will never be satisfied otherwise just stick to the 105mm

[richard plumb]

there was a good example I read recently about the differences in macro use. Basically as you get more telephoto, you get a narrower FOV, which can exaggerate the background blur nicely. I think they really showed a difference on the 180, but the 150 should be almost as good. especially considering you will need to stop down a lot to get decent DoF.

[James Martin]

I've got a 150mm on my 5D, couple of reasons for that decision:

#1 Full Frame camera so for me it made more sense...

#2 Allows me to get further away from the subject (great for things easily frightened)

#3 At the time I had no real telephoto lens and it made a great one for casual sports stuff (not the best lens/camera combo, but it got me some good shots)

But as far as I know they are both good lenses, I just felt the 150 to be worth it IMHO...