Daniele Colombo wrote...
>I'm going to buy a 105 micro f 2.8 for macro photos and portrait: anyone
>has personal experience with the new Sigma EX vs Nikon? In other words, is
>the quality difference worth the price difference?
Sergei replied...
>It is excellent. The sharpness will amaze you.
>If I had to point out the weaknesses: to put the lens in manual focus you
>have to press the ring -and- switch the camera to MF. It may flare, all
>macros have a tendency to flare if used as short telephoto. Use the hood.
>but the sharpness....will spoil you, you will wish all your lenses to be
>equally sharp.
>no distortions, no problems at f32 - 22.
>I tried the nikkor also. In my opinion get the sigma.
I own the Sigma 105mm F2.8D EX Macro and I must say that I agree with
Sergei. The EX is an excellent Macro lens and the sharpness of its image
has to be seen to be believe. I also own the Micro Nikkor 60mm F2.8D, and
for comparision I can say that the Sigma EX is just as sharp as this Nikkor
all the way to 1:1. The Nikkor 60mm may however be sharper at higher
reproduction ratios when used with a bellows unit. Flare is definitely
present when shot against a strong backlight, but when used as macro lens
the results can be quite stunning.
Some may find this lens too sharp when used as a portrait lens, as it can
easily pick up the blemishes and imperfections that your model may not want
other people to see. But I love counting pores, so I use this as my main
portrait lens.
I have also tried the Micro Nikkor 105mm f2.8D and the Tamrom 90mm f2.8D
Macro SP. Well, I ended up buying the Sigma EX! I really do believe it to
be the better performer, regardless of price.
Regards,
Greg
