Sigma 150: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{photonavbar}} | {{photonavbar}} | ||
<div class="flex-row row"> | <div class="flex-row row"> | ||
| Line 6: | Line 5: | ||
<div class="col-xs-12 col-md-3 col-lg-3"> | <div class="col-xs-12 col-md-3 col-lg-3"> | ||
[[File:sigma150.jpg|class=img-responsive]] | [[File:sigma150.jpg|class=img-responsive]] | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 12: | ||
<div class="panel-heading">'''A heavy [[macro]]'''</div> | <div class="panel-heading">'''A heavy [[macro]]'''</div> | ||
<div class="panel-body"> | <div class="panel-body"> | ||
My first non-Nikon [[lens]], this has certainly not disappointed. Basically my [[Nikon 105]] was stolen, and I wanted to get another [[macro]] and I wanted to get something different. This Sigma has a longer [[focal length]] and a [[reproduction ratio]] of 1:1 (the same as [[Nikon 105]]). The difference for [[macro]] photography is not so much, you can stand a | My first non-Nikon [[lens]], this has certainly not disappointed. Basically my [[Nikon 105]] was stolen, and I wanted to get another [[macro]] and I wanted to get something different. This Sigma has a longer [[focal length]] and a [[reproduction ratio]] of 1:1 (the same as [[Nikon 105]]). The difference for [[macro]] photography is not so much, technically you can stand a bit further back. This allows two things, you can get more light to illuminate your subject, you can use larger apertures as the [[focal depth]] increases with the distance, so you get more of the scene in focus at (say) <kbd>f/2.8</kbd> at 60cm rather than at 30cm. | ||
Like all [[macro]] lenses, you can use this lens also for ''normal'' work where you do not focus that close. At this point this is an excellent [[prime lens]] with f/2.8. Especially on an [[APS-C]] camera you get a quite interesting lens that works well for landscapes. | Like all [[macro]] lenses, you can use this lens also for ''normal'' work where you do not focus that close. At this point this is an excellent [[prime lens]] with f/2.8. Especially on an [[APS-C]] camera you get a quite interesting lens that works well for landscapes. | ||
| Line 57: | Line 55: | ||
<div class="panel-heading">'''[[APS-C]] '''</div> | <div class="panel-heading">'''[[APS-C]] '''</div> | ||
<div class="panel-body"> | <div class="panel-body"> | ||
I like longer lenses and this is why | I like longer lenses and this is why I use my macros usually on [[APS-C]] cameras. This one becomes a 225mm long lens at f/2.8. The problem is the weight. It is very unlikely that you will survive a day of shooting with only this lens, so you have to carry a second lens/camera with it, on top of the already significant weight. When I [[combine APS-C and full frame cameras]], I usually have a [[macro]] on the [[APS-C]] and a [[Nikon 35]] or a [[Nikon 20]] on the [[full frame]]. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 67: | Line 65: | ||
=== Gallery === | === Gallery === | ||
<gallery mode=slideshow> | <gallery mode=slideshow> | ||
File:spider.jpg|A tiny spider, highlighting what a [[macro]] lens can do for you. | File:spider.jpg|A tiny spider, highlighting what a long [[macro]] lens can do for you. | ||
File:furka.jpg|[[Macro]] lenses can be used for ''normal'' situations as well, they are excellent for landscapes. Here is the pass road of Furka in Switzerland. This is shot from the opposite side on the Grimsel pass road several kilometers away. | File:furka.jpg|[[Macro]] lenses can be used for ''normal'' situations as well, they are excellent for landscapes. Here is the pass road of Furka in Switzerland. This is shot from the opposite side on the Grimsel pass road several kilometers away. | ||
File:grimselsee.jpg|Another (mis)use of the [[macro]] lens for regular purposes. This is the Grimsel lake in Switzerland. | File:grimselsee.jpg|Another (mis)use of the [[macro]] lens for regular purposes. This is the Grimsel lake in Switzerland. | ||
File:Sigma150chip.jpg|Microchip photographed using the Sigma 150. This is with a [[APS-C]] camera, at (almost) the [[minimum focus distance]]. | File:Sigma150chip.jpg|Microchip photographed using the Sigma 150. This is with a [[APS-C]] camera, at (almost) the [[minimum focus distance]]. | ||
File:macros.jpg|Comparing three macro lenses side by side, Sigma 150 is on the left. | File:macros.jpg|Comparing three macro lenses side by side, Sigma 150 is on the left. | ||
File:sigma150_pacifier.jpg|This very sharp shot is actually interesting. Not much of the [[macro]] capability is being used here, the lens (here on an [[APS-C]] camera) is used as a regular long lens. There are actually very few cases where you need to come really close to take advantage of the [[minimum focus distance]] that a [[macro]] can offer. | |||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
Revision as of 22:00, 10 July 2021
My first non-Nikon lens, this has certainly not disappointed. Basically my Nikon 105 was stolen, and I wanted to get another macro and I wanted to get something different. This Sigma has a longer focal length and a reproduction ratio of 1:1 (the same as Nikon 105). The difference for macro photography is not so much, technically you can stand a bit further back. This allows two things, you can get more light to illuminate your subject, you can use larger apertures as the focal depth increases with the distance, so you get more of the scene in focus at (say) f/2.8 at 60cm rather than at 30cm.
Like all macro lenses, you can use this lens also for normal work where you do not focus that close. At this point this is an excellent prime lens with f/2.8. Especially on an APS-C camera you get a quite interesting lens that works well for landscapes.
This lens has vibration reduction (an older model does not), but I have read a lot of reviews that complain that it fails rather soon, and my used Sigma also does not have it working properly. However, this is not the end of the world. Sadly, Sigma has stopped making this lens (as of 2020). You will find mostly the 105mm version but the two longer versions (this one and the 1.65kg 180mm f/2.8) are not so common.
| Price | Rather expensive |
|---|---|
| Weight | Very Heavy, 1'200g |
| Good for | Macro, landscape, details |
| New or used | No longer manufactured, also quite rare used, I have seen some around 600 |
I love macro lenses, and this one works great on a full frame camera. In all honesty there is not much difference when using it as a macro. I like that it is a longer lens than the Nikon 105 when I am using it in museums and while hiking. Although I can not say I am a big fan of the weight. This is quite a heavy lens. Fortunately the tripod collar comes off, and it is not a problem to use it without a tripod when there is decent light.
I like longer lenses and this is why I use my macros usually on APS-C cameras. This one becomes a 225mm long lens at f/2.8. The problem is the weight. It is very unlikely that you will survive a day of shooting with only this lens, so you have to carry a second lens/camera with it, on top of the already significant weight. When I combine APS-C and full frame cameras, I usually have a macro on the APS-C and a Nikon 35 or a Nikon 20 on the full frame.
Gallery
A tiny spider, highlighting what a long macro lens can do for you.
Macro lenses can be used for normal situations as well, they are excellent for landscapes. Here is the pass road of Furka in Switzerland. This is shot from the opposite side on the Grimsel pass road several kilometers away.
Another (mis)use of the macro lens for regular purposes. This is the Grimsel lake in Switzerland.
Microchip photographed using the Sigma 150. This is with a APS-C camera, at (almost) the minimum focus distance.
Comparing three macro lenses side by side, Sigma 150 is on the left.
This very sharp shot is actually interesting. Not much of the macro capability is being used here, the lens (here on an APS-C camera) is used as a regular long lens. There are actually very few cases where you need to come really close to take advantage of the minimum focus distance that a macro can offer.
These pages are for Amateur Photographers and not really for seasoned photographers and professionals. I have no affiliation or commercial interest with any brand/make. I write from my own experience. I ended up using mainly Nikon, so I am more familiar with this brand than others. See price for notes on pricing as well as photography related links.