Sigma 105mm Macro vs Sigma 180mm Macro?

L

looneytunez1024

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,193
Edit My Images
Yes
Which is better? Im finding it hard to get good shots as im finding im too close to the things im trying to photograph
 
There isn't a 'better'

Two different lenses for different applications.

The 105 is an excellent all round macro lens.
The 180mm is heavier, larger, but with a better working distance.

If you need working distance, then the 180 is probably more suited, but bare in mind it you'll need to use a tripod more.
 
I had the Sigma 150mm and the Canon 180mm and sold them to get an 100mm macro as I did not need to shoot from that far and found the lighter, shorter lens, easier to use without a monopod or tripod.
 
At 100mm there is a good Canon lens; Sigma is a very distant fourth after Tamron 90mm and Tokina 100mm

Longer macros are nicer to work with. Sigma 180mm is nicer than 105mm as it is longer and has proper HSM. Perhaps 150mm sounds a little bit more reasonable though if you are after long ones.
 
The Sigma 150mm f2.8 is excellent.
 
i recently traded in my 150mm macro for the canon 100mm,

Reason: lighter, better focal length for portraits and less bulk in size.

the 150mm macro was a good for working distance, nice focus limiter for macro work(i used manual or the swaying technique). You do get a hood and a tripod ring to mount a hotshoe flash of a bracket.
 
only one problem is i need to sell my 105mm before i can buy a new one lol as still not allowed to advertise on here yet
 
I forgot to ask, what exactly is it you take macros of?

If you shoot insects like butterflies, the extra working distance of a 150 or 180 is valuable, but if your subjects aren't prone to flying away, save the weight and keep the 105.

I own the 150, and it is an excellent wildlife macro lens.
 
If your struggling with the 105mm then you will struggle with the excellent sigma 150mm due to its extra weight and size so you could go for the Canon 100mm which has a longer working distance than the Siggy 105mm.

focusdistance.jpg
 
The Siggy 150mm may be bigger and heavier than a 100mm but if using a tripod this would be largely irrelevant. Having said that I mostly hand hold mine and one advantage of having a longer lens is that you can shoot from further away and therefore stand less chance of blocking light and so may be able to use a faster shutter speed and so overcome camera shake, you can also bump the ISO too if shake is a problem.
 
squishy said:
I forgot to ask, what exactly is it you take macros of?

If you shoot insects like butterflies, the extra working distance of a 150 or 180 is valuable, but if your subjects aren't prone to flying away, save the weight and keep the 105.

I own the 150, and it is an excellent wildlife macro lens.
Click to expand...

Insects bugs anything that probably will fly away lol ill keep trying with the 105 and see how i get one but will consider the 150mm
 
I bought a Sigma 180mm a few weeks ago and have to say the extra length over the 100mm I was using is very handy for bugs.

Couple of shots taken with it on m Flickr page HERE & HERE if you are interested.

Nice sharp lens, I always use it handheld but have the added advantage of SR built into the camera body.
 
"SR built into the camera body"

You lucky sod! :razz: I think that they all should be sadly I think that Canon will be the last to fit this, unless Nikon are last.
 
woof woof said:
The Siggy 150mm may be bigger and heavier than a 100mm but if using a tripod this would be largely irrelevant. Having said that I mostly hand hold mine and one advantage of having a longer lens is that you can shoot from further away and therefore stand less chance of blocking light and so may be able to use a faster shutter speed and so overcome camera shake, you can also bump the ISO too if shake is a problem.
Click to expand...

A tripods great if your photographing static objects - unfortunately bugs wont wait why you faf around trying to set your tripod up and focus.
 
For flowers I might use a tripod although usually I just hand hold, for bugs I use a rolled up newspaper or a slipper. :lol:
 
Not sure if it's worth mentioning but October's 'macro' edition of Practical Photography has 16 of the most popular macro lenses on test (including these two) - it talks about the differences between 3 'typical' macro lengths 60mm 105mm 180mm and what they're best suited to etc etc
 
Most macro lenses are very sharp, the only way you ll get a poor one is if its a bad sample. The guy who said Sigma is the worse obviously has nt used one. I have the Sigma 150mm its as sharp as any Ive seen including Nikon and the venerable Tamron. Do a Google and check some reviews its very well thought of and recommended.

Actually reviews of Canon Nikon Sigma Tamron and Tokina macros are here.(this page is the Sigma 150 review you need to go to the front page to get to the others)

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...f28-apo-ex-hsm-macro-dg-d-review--test-report


I do a lot of bugs and for 1:1 youre about 10" which is ok for most. It is heavy but not so bad as the 180mm and cheaper. I find tripods useless for bugs as they are gone before youve set up. The best trick is to use a strong pole, something like a broom handle, which you can hold together with the lens in your left hand, holding the camera body in your right, then if your legs are slightly spread you can make yourself in a "tripod" to steady things and the pole also takes the lens weight. This method is very quick and easy after a little practice and has the further advantage of you being able to move your hand quickly up and down the pole to follow any moving bugs.
Incidentally extension tubes plus a long prime or good quality zoom are excellent for things like butterflies where you dont want 1:1.
I ve got good results with a Sigma 400mm f5.6 ( not so sharp but more than good enough if stopped down) and my Nikon 80-200 f2.8.
 
Last edited:
Dogfish_magnet said:
A tripods great if your photographing static objects - unfortunately bugs wont wait why you faf around trying to set your tripod up and focus.
Click to expand...

I disagree. About half my photography with the 150mm is done on a tripod, and it's not often I scare the insect away before getting a pic.

And it's that half of my photography that usually turns out better.
 
think i might consider the 150 instead as it seems it might be easier than the 180 the only reason im changing is i keep scaring the bugs off and its frustrating
 
The difference isn't massive between the 105 and the 150, but it is definitely enough to notice. You can also add a 1.4x TC to it to get a reasonably light weight 210mm f/4 macro that'll go to 1.4:1 magnification, and maintain very good IQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top