Review of Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro

[budak]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[trident]

budak,
thanks for the link, looks like a fine lens and Billy has 1.

[luenny]

It says in the review that there a lot more focusing errors than expected. Do they mean AF or MF?

[Shadow]

It says "showed inconsistent accuracy in both one-shot and AI Servo AF modes" and "most-inconsistent autofocusing lens I've used but definitely is not the best in this regard. Fortunately, most macro photography is done using manual focusing which makes any autofocus inconsistencies and speeds irrelevant."

So should be AF

[luenny]

Hmmm ... interesting then. While it is true that when I shoot macro I go manual focus, but would I settle for an AF lens that cannot AF properly?

[Goondoo]

Hmmm ... interesting then. While it is true that when I shoot macro I go manual focus, but would I settle for an AF lens that cannot AF properly?

Hmmm... good question...
Any cheaper macro lenses (with such range) you can get new that is manual only?
Anyway, i had always use AF on my D70s and loaned D80.
Never had a problem and its definitely a lot faster than the Tamron 180mm on a D3

[Simon]

my concern is the coating on the lens, the lens is defintely well made but if the coating isn't going to last then what is the point? This is based on their 105mm/180mm model, users complain of peeling of the lens after using it over a period of time.

As the review is based solely on the 150mm range, I find it rather pointless talking about the min. focus distance since it will be further than the 90/100mm and shorter than the 180mm, which is only natural. As for the AF question, the accuracy depends alot on lighting situation, high light = accurate, low lighting = not accurate concept regardless of any lens, any made. Speed wise, 90/100/150mm is faster than the 180mm because it is a f2.8 lens, the 180mm is much slower.

One good thing about the 150mm is the range it covers, but might not be applicable for all types of macro photography. For insect macro, it may or may not be suitable depending on sensitivity of subject. If we talking about butterfly photography, users can use a range of 50 - 200mm depending on species and I can honestly say even a 180mm is insufficient at times

[luenny]

You may be right about being able to get a manual lens for that price and focal length range. But you probably get one with better optics too. Remember, lens is not just about AF or MF.

One thing I keep hearing is that there are some users complain about Sigma quality but other users doesn't have any problems. I don't have any problems with my Sigma lens too when I was shooting flim. Could it be just a QC issue again causing some lens to drop coating or not focusing accurately enough?

[Goondoo]

Reading from probably more than a hundred reviews and forums before I purchase the Sigma Glass (since everyone around me seems to be using T180), I am still hoping that it will not inherit its predessors problem (still keeping my fingers cross). S150 is the latest generation among its macro brothers and the coating seems safe as long as there are no hard scratches on it. I am not a Sigma salesman or defending my purchase, I just love the excellent focusing speed, quiet and the fantastic optics.

That said, I think one should buy what they need based on what they understand from the research and home work they do. Simply asking around only will soon become a blaming game (which is always happening).

[Shadow]

That only apply for expert

For beginner like me asking around and reading review are the only way . Even if I borrow lens and try it out, the poor photo quality might be due to my poor skill

So what worked for me is asked different person, read lots of review and summarize from there.

[Goondoo]

That only apply for expert

For beginner like me asking around and reading review are the only way . Even if I borrow lens and try it out, the poor photo quality might be due to my poor skill

So what worked for me is asked different person, read lots of review and summarize from there.

I agree, that's what I did too. However, one must understand that different people have different expectations.

Example: Some photographer prefer manual focus and think little of AF speed. You on the other side might think that AF speed is more important as it help you more.

Example 2: There are also people that have bias against certain brands, I got a friend for example that DO NOT use any third party lenses at all and when I asked him for advise, he always ask me to go for the best, get Nikon lenses. However, most range that I am considering are far too expensive if I would get Nikon lenses. A Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 cost about $700, whereas a Nikon 17-50 f2.8 would cost more than $2000. Reviews had claims that the output is nearly indistinguishable. So end of the day, it's one that decide how deep the pocket is to suit his needs, not wants.

[Simon]

I have to agree with billy, enough with all the reviews on the internet, the best and sure way to know if the lens is good, is to test it out yourself and judge it. But I like to point out is all the macro lenses in the market, optical quality is almost similar except for maybe some slightly differences in colour temperature between brands. You have to ask yourself what you intend to use it for, what distance is your subject, are they moving or still.