# Good to start off with?



## redlazer (Apr 30, 2011)

Hello I'm looking at getting a Sigma 105mm F/2.8 to do a little macro shooting.  Will this lens work good for me?  
Thank you


----------



## Marc-Etienne (Apr 30, 2011)

You'll have to give us a little more details. What camera do you shot with? What kind of macro are you looking at doing (texture/flowers/insects)? 

I own one, I'm fairly happy. Having to get a new macro lens, would I get a Sigma 105? Probably not. I would go for the Nikon 105 VR or the Sigma 150mm OS (if they can finally release it!). The VR option at this length and magnification would be very nice.


----------



## redlazer (May 1, 2011)

I'm looking to do flowers, and insects.  I'm shooting with a canon 7d.  I can't afford anything buy new.  I know it is a 1:1 mag.


----------



## Marc-Etienne (May 1, 2011)

The only down point you should look for if you can try a lens before buying would be to make sure you don't have a green flare when you shoot light color or reflective surfaces. I'm having lots of problem shooting in this conditions and need some heavy PP to get rid of the flare. Look at those post I made caterpillar, http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/240642-what-wrong-me.html to see what I mean. But if I don't shoot in those condition I achieve awesome http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-flowers-monster-c-c-semi-pics-heavy-9-a.html. Overall, I've been pleased, but not totally. I know that Overread and MarkW love their sigma macro lenses.


----------



## redlazer (May 1, 2011)

i see what u are talking about.  why its there a green flare?  it i can get it for a good price i will, bc a macro is better than none lol.


----------



## Markw (May 1, 2011)

Thanks for the shout-out Marc! 

I owned the Sigma 105mm Macro for about 1.5 years.  I loved it.  It produced wonderful photos.  Sharp, crisp, etc, etc.  There are three things wrong with that lens.  

1.  The filter ring.  NEVER use a filter on that lens.  Any filter I put on the lens resulted in a struggle to get it off without crushing the lens.  It somehow finds its way to get SOOOO tight while you're shooting that you have to be Hercules to get it off, and even then, you risk breaking the lens.  I found the same to be true for the 50mm Sigma macro.  I won't try it on my 180mm Sigma Macro because of this.

2. The barrel extends about 4-6" while focusing.  This is a biggie.  Take it from the bug's perspective.  You've already got a goliath giant chasing you around, the last thing you need is a shiny, reflective probe the 20x the size of you coming in and out towards you.

3.  The lens is SUPER NOISY.  When you focus, it is quite slow and extremely noisy.  The slowness is typical of almost all macro lenses, but the noise combined with the barrel movements have resulted in many, many missed shots due to the bugs being scared by the lens.  

That being said, everything else worked lovely.  I've gotten what I think are great shots with the lens and it definately surpassed any preconceptions I had about it.  I loved the lens while I had it and kind of missed it when I upgraded to the 180mm.  With Macro, I'd try to get one with a focusing motor to eliminate noise, and without moving parts while focusing to eliminate skittish bugs from being scared.  If you can't, I think you'll be happy with the Sigma 105mm.

Mark


----------



## Marc-Etienne (May 1, 2011)

redlazer said:


> i see what u are talking about.  why its there a green flare?  it i can get it for a good price i will, bc a macro is better than none lol.


 
I initially thought it was some diffraction related issue since the flare is non-existent below f/8 while shooting at a white sheet of paper. I then realized that I didn't have that flare while shooting mat colours (like the flowers), but the flare appears when I shoot a white surface (like the spider pictures) or reflective surface (the caterpillar was shot on my desk that as a semi-reflective finish). So I'm guessing that a part of the issue is the light reflection on the surface surrounding my subject creates flare. My next move is to get a hood to see if it could reduce the flare. It should come in the mail in the coming weeks. If you can find it at a good price, you should definitively go for it. I had some frustration, but overall, it is a nice lens. 



Markw said:


> Thanks for the shout-out Marc!



I got to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar. You and Overread are part of the biggest macro photographers on this forum, and I know that you both shoot Sigma lenses!


----------



## TheFantasticG (May 1, 2011)

VR/IS/OS/VC doesn't help at 1:1. Even Nikon says its use at that kind of magnification is moot.  I used the Sigma 105 for awhile. Good lens. I like the Sigma 150 much better though for the working distance and, this is a big one, better handling of CA and colors.

Thom Hogan:

"The exact words in the Nikon manual say "As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x [sic], the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease." In other literature, Nikon has flat out said to turn off VR for macro use. What's the real answer? The manual is correct, basically. The closer you focus, the less VR has an impact on the final image. At 1:1 (the closest focus distance), it may not impart any benefit (it didn't seem to in the testing conditions I could create). So do you turn VR off when working in macro? If you're pressed up towards the limits of focus, I'd say yes--you're wasting battery life and potentially making it more difficult to hit a focus point. But if you're focused out beyond two or three feet (~.7m+), it probably makes sense to leave it on, as you'll get some benefit (though not the four stops Nikon claims for the system unless you're focusing far further out into the scene)."

On the 1.6x magnification of the 7D sensor, the Siggy 105 should be good. If the OP likes it well enough, the Canon makes a 180 macro don't they?


----------



## Marc-Etienne (May 2, 2011)

TheFantasticG said:


> VR/IS/OS/VC doesn't help at 1:1. Even Nikon says its use at that kind of magnification is moot.  I used the Sigma 105 for awhile. Good lens. I like the Sigma 150 much better though for the working distance and, this is a big one, better handling of CA and colors.
> 
> Thom Hogan:
> 
> ...


 
I didn't know that, it is good to know! Thanks Fantastic!


----------



## redlazer (May 2, 2011)

Yea canon makes a 180 macro, but it is like 1500 bucks to much to start out with.  also why would anyone use AF when doing macro photography?  I would say MF only.  Which ends the noisy AF problem.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 2, 2011)

redlazer said:


> Hello I'm looking to do *a little macro shooting*.
> Thank you


 
I see what you did there.


----------



## redlazer (May 2, 2011)

lol ok


----------

