Love that Macro Lens! (Sigma 150 / 2.8 Macro -- they finally did something right!)

JJ: "Are you happy with the Sigma macro?"

JJ, I love it! It is large and just a bit heavy, which can help to steady it, and of course, it qualifies for the "Rock Hard™" exercise program.

But it is a 150mm lens, so it's going to be heavier than shorter lengths. I have used it on D200 and D3, and it works great on both. The HSM, equivalent to Nikon's AFS, ultrasonic focusing mechanism built into the lens means it will auto-focus on D40 's and the rest, AFAIK. And when you're not auto-focusing well into the macro,and hunting back to infinity, which can happen in low light with close subjects with any dedicated macro / AF lens, then focusing is almost as fast as Nikon's best...that I have used: 70-200VR, 17-55G, and 24-70G.

Focusing is fast and accurate, and the lens is very sharp. Very, very sharp. It has very good correction for color plane focus: low CA's (chromatic aberrations); I consider this very important for regular and macro lenses. Don't listen when someone tells you you can just correct for this in software. Sure, you can, somewhat, but you will always have to try to fix this problem with your pictures because your lens didn't work well enough! Get a good lens to begin with, with minimal CA's (all lenses have some degree of inability to focus all colors on the same plane (CA) ) :)

I like the extra 'reach' or distance from the lens that the longer focal length gives you over a 105mm, 90mm, 70mm and 60mm. I have shot a lot of small scenes at shows and I can reach right in there for shots that have to be cropped out of other people's work, full frame in mine. I have also hand-held the D200 / Sigma 150 / 2.8 Macro combination at speeds as slow as 1/5 of a second with little discernible camera movement. I can't do that with my 135/2.0 Nikkor. I have trouble holding it still at 1/60 " for some reason....

I do like this lens. It has good color rendition, excellent sharpness, good auto-focus and is very hand-holdable. It's also rugged, as I've dragged it all around and had no problems. I think it does very well with portraits too, but you have to back up to get more than a head shot!

Negatives: weight, size, price. It's cheaper than a Nikon 105 / 2.8 VR, and about as good. It's the best, if not only good Sigma lens I've ever used (I've owned or used a few real dogs from Sigma!)

$599.00 from B+H

More samples from this lens


Other Macro lenses I would consider:
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro $755.00 (full frame, no aperture ring)

Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Macro $569.95 (AF-S with SWM, ED glass, 9 blade diaphragm, CRC, cool coatings: SIC + NanoCrystal) -(expensive, not in stores yet, short working distance)

Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 SP Di Macro (1:1) $369.89 (full frame, aperture ring, screw-drive focusing)

200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro Telephoto Nikkor $1339.95(Adorama) (Big, heavy, expensive, sharp, slow, slow AutoFocus)

Used: 105/2.8 AIS Nikkor, 60/2.8 AF-D Nikkor should be good buys, under $400 and $250 respectively.

/..