Struggling between 105mm Micro and D7000 -- which one to go?

[Almond.Butterscotch]

I think number 2 is true of all macro lenses. All lenses, period, for that matter.

1/3 of a stop isn't as much of a difference- or as noticeable- as the 1.5 stops the 105mm VR loses

"The 105mm VR has a ~200 degree-of-rotation focus ring. About 180 degrees of rotation is dedicated to close distance..."

One needs the critical focus at closer magnification. That's a plus!!

Don't take it out of context, now. Like I said before, it's a GREAT macro lens- its obviously what it was designed to be and does a fantastic job at it. It's just not as good a telephoto as it is a macro.

[vandergus]

1/3 of a stop isn't as much of a difference- or as noticeable- as the 1.5 stops the 105mm VR loses

My point was that the change in effective aperture isn't an "option". Every 105mm macro lens will have the same light loss at close focusing distances.

[Benny Pan]

Recently had checked out these two lenses and their reviews are very impressive.

105mm cost only $480 and 150mm costs $700. By no way their price mark can catch up the Nikkor 105mm's $900. Reviews say the only differences are:

1. Slightly noisier AF with Sigma (not important)
2. Slightly slower AF with Sigma (not impoartant)
3. No OS (as VR in Nikon) with sigma

In shooting macro VR seems less important because i will use tripod or shooting at high SS in daytime. But as i mention i am thinking of using macro lens to shoot portrait too. So i have a few questions here:

• Does Sigma 105 or 150mm macro AF on Nikon D40?
• Has anyone used one or the two Sigma macro lenses and how is the quality? I get told third party lenses have shorter life span but i wonder how short?

Thank you

[Benny Pan]

Firebox:
I'd suggest you get the 60mm micro f/2.8G for FX. Light and cheap like the 85mm

For longer focal length, I'd get the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro. It's excellent and doesn't have the focus breathing issues as the Nikon 105.

I thought about that. But in my case 60mm on D40 is still too short in conference or drama play. 85mm 1.8 is infamous in portrait performance but D40 doesn't support AF, and MF is problem especially in dark occasion where my poor eyesight doesn't allow me to focus correctly

[Benny Pan]

against most third party lenses, and I imagine the 'slide-the-focus-ring' AF to MF switch on the Sigma would get on my nerves very quickly when trying to nudge the focus just a hair. Plus, it doesn't look like it would AF at all on the TC-17 (due to being a screwdrive AF, not because of aperture)... not the end of the world for macro work, but still a bummer.

I am very impressed by the instant MF switch too. for less than half the price of nikkor 105mm

[Benny Pan]

Yes, I own three Nikon AI gems that are tiny in comparison:
105mm f/2.5 (not 2.8)
200mm F/4
...and the bargain 75-150mm f/3.5 series E

"All lenses, period, for that matter. It's just one of those optical laws that as the magnification changes, so does the effective aperture. It's not really dependent on lens design."

Yes, it's hard to change the laws of physics regardless of how the CPU reads!

"The 105mm VR has a ~200 degree-of-rotation focus ring. About 180 degrees of rotation is dedicated to close distance..."

One needs the critical focus at closer magnification. That's a plus!!

My Cosina Voigtlander 125mm F/2.5 apo-Lanthar rotates 650º from 1:1 to inf. It took me one week of hard work to become used to just focusing the lens, or should I say, finding my subject!). Needless to say, it's manual focus.

BTW, as soon as I processed the first few files created by the CV-125, my 105mm nikon went up on eBay.

While I'm on the CV-125, a few words. This macro is absolutely tack sharp from !:! to inf. Likewise from f/2.5 to f/22 There is no CA, no focus breathing, color rendition is gorgeous and so is the bokeh. It took me one year to locate my copy because it's extremely rare -- Cosina only made about 2500 in Nikon mount.

There is another alternative in the same league as the CV and should cost much less. The Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Elmarit R Macro. You can purchase a Leitax (10-hole) precision adapter available for several different mounts for under $100. This lens is modified very easily. There are a couple of other "apo" alternatives, but the two I mentioned are the best (unless you want to spend $6K for the Coastal Optics).

All this being said, for myself, I choose optics that are superior and take the time and practice learning to use it in order to accomplish what I want. I want my failures to be my errors, not the fault of the equipment. The difference can be compared to an aspiring pianist who prefers to practice on a Steinway grand rather than a spinet.

The Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO cost >$2000 so it's way over my budget. You are right about the CV-125 i searched the net, amazon and ebay nobody on earth is selling that lens. Even someone is selling i guess the price tag would be around $2k as well.

[bruceliv]

After studying your stated needs and responses, I suggest you upgrade to the D7K. This would give you the versatility you've mentioned in your original post. And, you might discover an entirely new dimension shooting with the bright 50-1.8 on the D7k.

The following is a thread I started on Nikongear earlier this year during my quest for an appropriate macro lens.

Choosing a Macro lens around 100mm

I call your attention to nfoto's comments on the Sigma. Bjørn is probably the most revered Nikon reviewer in the world. His praise of the CV-125 is the reason for the high demand and its consequential cost

My suggestion is sometimes we have to start building from the ground up. IMO, you need a better camera.

[vandergus]

Does Sigma 105 or 150mm macro AF on Nikon D40?

For Sigma lenses, you have to look for "HSM" in the title. That indicates an in-lens focus motor. Unfortunately, the 105mm and 150mm macro are not HSM lenses. Take a look at the Tamoron 90mm f2.8 macro. They just released a new version that will autofocus on the D40 and it's got a great reputation. Should give you the length you need, too.

Edit: Oops. I was mistaken on the 150mm. It is an HSM lens. I would still check out the Tamron, though.

[Nicole]

105mm cost only $480 and 150mm costs $700. By no way their price mark can catch up the Nikkor 105mm's $900. Reviews say the only differences are:

1. Slightly noisier AF with Sigma (not important)
2. Slightly slower AF with Sigma (not impoartant)
3. No OS (as VR in Nikon) with sigma

I just replaced my Sigma 105mm (the older D version, not the EX DG version, so there may be a few differences) with the Nikon 105mm VR. The first two reasons were actually my main reasons. The AF was beyond slightly noiser, it was much noisier. Definitely slower too. The other thing that actually annoyed me (even though others seem to dislike the way the Nikon does it), was how much the Sigma extends. I wound up bumping into things if auto-focusing. Maybe I'm too lazy that I like to auto-focus, but eh. Now, that said, I was hoping the VR was going to be helpful, and I can honestly say that it has been. Same shot different lenses, and the sharpness was much better with the Nikon.

That said, the Sigma was very good. It's just that my personal opinion is that the Nikon is better.

[Benny Pan]

After studying your stated needs and responses, I suggest you upgrade to the D7K. This would give you the versatility you've mentioned in your original post. And, you might discover an entirely new dimension shooting with the bright 50-1.8 on the D7k.

The following is a thread I started on Nikongear earlier this year during my quest for an appropriate macro lens.

Choosing a Macro lens around 100mm

I call your attention to nfoto's comments on the Sigma. Bjørn is probably the most revered Nikon reviewer in the world. His praise of the CV-125 is the reason for the high demand and its consequential cost

My suggestion is sometimes we have to start building from the ground up. IMO, you need a better camera.

yeah i do feel that D40 has a gr8 impact on the choice of lens i can buy and use.