Macro Lens

Is any one using either of the Sigma macro zoom lens. And if so, what are your opinions?

I'm considering replacing my 60 Nikon macor with one of these at my switch from film to digital.

The new 18-50mm (27-75mm equivalnet) F2.8 looks promising, but only goes to 1:3 and the minimum focusing distance is 20cm.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093012sigma18-50dc.asp

I haven't seen this lens myself yet, as it is just announced, but I am interested in exploring the possiblities of using it with a dioptre.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_al...amp;navigator=6

Alex

The 60mm Nikkor is a fine lens that works great with a digital setup. Why change?

Just saved you a few hundred bucks (probably more, when you factor in the cost of port and gear), now you owe me a beer

I have no experience with the Sigma macro zooms.

However, I consider the Nikon 60mm macro to be the best underwater lens (for the kind of photos I take) on digital. Lots of other users here feel the same way about their 60s. In fact, Martin Edge wrote in his new digital underwater photography manual that this was his favorite lens on digital. The digital crop factor makes this lens more like the FOV of a 90mm on film. So I wouldn't see any compelling reason to trade a Nikon 60 for a Sigma zoom.

You may see a reason to add the Nikon 105mm however. The new VR 105mm is great and there are lots of used 105mm AF lenses on the market these days.

The Sigma 150mm is a different beast altogether. I have not used it but those who have report stunning super-macro performance. But this is much more of a specialized lens. The 60 is a great all around lens.

Despite so many enthusiasts for the Nikkor 60 on this forum I would often prefer a shorter focal length macro for a lot of medium smallish subjects. I'm not sure such a lens exists. Perhaps I'm in the minority by wanting a shorter focal length macro.

I've looked at the sigma mid range zooms to see if they would suffice. An 18-50 range seems ideal for a lot of subjects and indeed my current 18-55 f3.5-5.6 Nikkor I have found very useful. However I'd like a faster closer focusing version.

The specs of the 18-70 F2.8-4.5 looked promising. After reading some favourable posts I went to try and fit one in my housing but found the length of the zoom extention just too big to fit sensibly behind a dome port - and pretty useless behind a flat port.

The current Sigma 18-50 f2.8 focuses to 28cm but the the new 18-50 f2.8 (indicated by Alex above) focuses to 20 cm and might be worth a look when available.

I would recommend that if you read about any lens that looks promising - go and try and assemble it in your housing and you might get a different opinion.

If you want it to focus closer i.e to get a higher magnification and still retain the wider FOV of a shorter focal length you may try a diopter.

If your goal is not high magnification but rather getting closer but still including larger subjects then this is really the realm of the mid range zoom. Many people use mid range zooms for mid size subjects and the flexibility of a do everything lens. The 18-70 works well. The f2.8 of the sigma lens is interesting but at 20cm and 1:3 I wouldn't really call it a "macro" lens. Alternately, a 35mm f2 lens with a 4T diopter may get you close to what you used to get with the 60mm on film.

If decreasing the water column is your goal then a WA lens may be your ticket. Alex Mustard has been experimenting with WA macro shots with some interesting results. Maybe this is where you want to be.

Thanks to all for the response. I should have added the following info.

Currently have 60mm and 105 m macro lens onfilm camera. When going to digital, then my 60mm becomes a 90 mm. Now I am with out a macro range in the previous 60mm film range for smaller reef fish in the 5-8" range .

Believe me, you will not miss a macro in the 60 range. I really like how my 60 behaves now in digital (and I used it a lot on film). If you need to photograph larger fish with it, just move a little further back, its sharpness will be the same. I really think that with the 60 and 105 you are pretty much covered in the macro range. The only lens to add for fish photography is a relatively wide zoom (in the 17-50 range) as already mentioned for sharks and large fish. I use the 17-55 for this purpose and it's a great lens, but there are cheaper options.

Luiz

I own a Sigma 28-70mm F2.8-F2.8. Which I find is an excellent fish lens. Not a macro, though.

Alex