need your help for a macro lens

[Rene Quenneville]

I would like to start more serious work with macro photography.
I see 2 lens that could do the job quite good:
1) Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR
2) Sigma 1500mm f/2.8

The Sigma seems to be sharper (as I could see in some reviews). The Nikkor offers VR, which I am not sure what it is used for in macro photography. Then there is the focal length difference (105 vs 150).

I would like to do flowers and buterflies. Please give me your thoughts.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Rene There is a huge difference With the 105 you will need to get very close to your subject I have and use the Sigma 150 2.8 Sure wish it had VR since it makes a difference I'm planing on getting the 200 Nikon Macro

For butterflies you need a longer lens I use the 300 f4.0 has a decent minimum close focusing performance and will allow you to be at a decent distance. With macro is a toss up tripod no tripod I go back an forth Without you have tremendous mobility.

btw the Sigma has a dedicated 1.4X converter Excellent performance !!!

[Rick Groom]

In the past I've owned both of those focal lengths and the 180 macro from Sigma. I found that the 150 was a strange focal length and was very uncomfortable with it. Even though ig was only 30mm shorter than the 180, I either found it too short for skittish insects or too long for other things. In my hands it just felt weird. However it does have the 2.8 thing going for it. If you can afford the 200 Nikon that would be my choice for for my style of shooting. If not the 180 DG Sigma will serve the purpose nicely.
Hope that helps.

[Robert O'Toole]

I would like to start more serious work with macro photography.
I see 2 lens that could do the job quite good:
1) Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR
2) Sigma 1500mm f/2.8

The Sigma seems to be sharper (as I could see in some reviews). The Nikkor offers VR, which I am not sure what it is used for in macro photography. Then there is the focal length difference (105 vs 150).

These 2 lenses are considered the top in IQ (image Quality) out there for Nikon right now. I have used both and the 105VR working distance is very short. The S150 offers you more working room and has a lower cost. I would recommend giving both lenses a test drive at a camera shop. Bring you body and try them out. Good shops will let you take them outdoors. Then you can make up your see what will meet your needs.

Keep 2 things in mind.
The FOV crop factor (1x,1.5x, 2x with Nikon) will not give you increased working distance or greater magnification. A 1:1 lens on a 2X FOV camera is still 1:1.
Also remember that IF lenses lose focal length as they focus close. Nikon published the equiv focal length of the 200/4 micro and it was 140mm at 1:2. Remember this if you are looking for good working distance and a narrow field of view (for isolation and control of the BG).

Robert

[Bob Reimer]

If you can find a used one, the 70-180 Nikkor Zoom Micro is very useful. It has a unique design that keeps the f stop the same as you focus closer meaning that it actually lets in more light when close focused than the 105. The zoom is very useful for adjusting the crop in camera without having to change your setup. With the 6T diopter, it goes to 1:1. Unfortunately Nikon recently discontinued this lens and the diopters. You might find it still on the shelf somewhere new, but that would be a long shot. I've seen a couple come up on EBay. Hopefully Nikon will update the 70-180.

If you have the 80-400 VR, get the 77mm Canon 500D close-up diopter. This makes a great macro kit with outstanding working distance. Since the 80-400 works better at infinity, I tend to use this combination as my walking around kit and only use the 70-180 if I know I'm going to be doing dedicated macro shooting.

[Robert Amoruso]

I have started using the Sigma 150mm with my D300 and am very happy with it.

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

My pal has the Nikon 105 VR and he gets terrific results - handheld, that's why he got the VR. I hope to be comparing the Sigma 150 and 180 for insect photography soon.
My heart was set on buying a Canon 180mm but from what I can see after much searching it is no better than the Sigma 180mm which is half the price in UK. The finish is better on the Canon but that's about it. If anyone has different views i would welcome them.
Jon

[Bill Jobes]

I would like to start more serious work with macro photography.
I see 2 lens that could do the job quite good:
1) Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR
2) Sigma 1500mm f/2.8

The Sigma seems to be sharper (as I could see in some reviews). The Nikkor offers VR, which I am not sure what it is used for in macro photography. Then there is the focal length difference (105 vs 150).

I would like to do flowers and buterflies. Please give me your thoughts.
I use the Tamron 90mm, which I like a lot.
Here's a link to it: http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/90mm.asp
Also, last year I had great results using the Canon 400mm 5.6 with various Kenko extenders.
I was able to get excellent results with butterflies and moths, by being able to photograph them from several feet away at this focal length.
Many think it's counterintuitive to use a tele for macro, but it does indeed produce good results.

[Jim Poor]

When you folks talk about the Nikon 200 for macro, are you talking about the f2 or f4? My understanding is that the f4 is pretty well established as a great macro lens, but the f2 might not have the MFD required.