Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I am thinking of getting one of these for my Nikon D70. Any thoughts or ideas. Thanks, Derek

I use Sigma 180mm and 105mm macros on a D70. Both are exceptional lenses which are sturdy enough to withstand regular use in the field for herp photograpy. The 180mm is very useful in photographing skittish subjects because of the long working distance. I've never used the Sigma 150mm but have heard it, like the 105mm and 180mm, is an optically excellent lens. It has a slightly shorter working distance than the 180mm, but is lighter and therefore easier to handle.

Here are a couple shots taken with the 180mm on a D70. Both photos are uncropped.

Thank you, I made a mistake. It should have said 105 or 150. I think I'll go for the 150. Derek

I'm sure you'll like the lens. I've heard only positive comments about it from those who use it.

Regards,
WK

Something to consider in this comparison is the minimum focusing distance. Although they both go down to 1:1 (filling the frame with something the size of the sensor ~ 23mm x 15mm), the 105 does it from 12 inches away whereas the 150 does it from 15 inches away.

I don't know if the difference between 12 and 15 inches will really matter, but sometimes longer focal lengths require you to be so far away that you can't control the animal (I don't think 15" is too far, however).

Also the 150 comes with a tripod foot which can be nice for tripod mountain, but can make hand holding a little more cumbersome.

Either one is a great lens and you wouldn't ever regret either decision.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

Something to consider in this comparison is the minimum focusing distance. Although they both go down to 1:1 (filling the frame with something the size of the sensor ~ 23mm x 15mm), the 105 does it from 12 inches away whereas the 150 does it from 15 inches away.

I don't know if the difference between 12 and 15 inches will really matter, but sometimes longer focal lengths require you to be so far away that you can't control the animal (I don't think 15" is too far, however).

Also the 150 comes with a tripod foot which can be nice for tripod mounting, but can make hand holding a little more cumbersome.

Either one is a great lens and you wouldn't ever regret either decision.
>>-----
>>Chris Harrison
>>San Antonio, Texas

-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

If I can come up with a little extra money, would you recommend the 180mm? I would like to get some nice field pics of animals, especially of an Eastern Diamondback someday. I like to go out herping, for pictures mostly. I would also like to take some quality pictures of hatchlings, if I produce any this year, for my new website that is being built. I have a 300mm lense with a macro function, but with a minimum of 6 feet. I don't really use it for macro shots. Thank you all very much, Derek

I think you can get the 180mm for the same price or less than the 150mm. The 105mm would work well for field photos of EDBs unless you want tight close-ups (like the head filling most of the frame, for example). Longer focal length macro lenses may require that you be quite far away from the animal, especially if it is a big one, in order to fit enough of it in the frame. But if you really are interested in close-ups of venomous animals in the field, I say the longer the focal length the better in order to maximize working distance. Here is the kind of close-up shot I’m taking about:

EDB with D70 and Sigma 180mm macro, SB800 Flash on Wimberly Shapeshifter bracket. Photo uncropped. I wouldn’t attempt to make this same shot with a 105mm.

Oh Man! Your a teaser with that shot! I'll wait another payday to gett the Sigma 180mm. Thanks, Derek

If I can come up with a little extra money, would you recommend the 180mm? I would like to get some nice field pics of animals, especially of an Eastern Diamondback someday. I like to go out herping, for pictures mostly. I would also like to take some quality pictures of hatchlings, if I produce any this year, for my new website that is being built.

I don't know that I would get the 180 as my primary macro lens. Yes, it still allows you to be 18 inches away at 1:1, but remember that is taking the photo of something the size of a postage stamp. However, you will rarely be shooting pictures of something that small. When you start trying to include the whole animal, suddenly you have to be 6 feet away or more. That makes animal control a lot more difficult. The shorter focal length allows you to stay within range more readily.

For wiggling hatchlings, I would much rather have a 105 than the 180. Remember, I have a 90mm and a 180mm macro and my 180 rarely sees the light of day. I shoot almost all my herp shots with my 90mm.

The shorter focal length also cuts down on the telephoto compression which causes things to look closer together than they do to the naked eye. So for example, if you Eastern Diamondback happens to be coiled photogenically under a saw palmetto, when you look with the naked eye the palmetto leaf looks like it is 3 feet in front of the snake, but in the telephoto it looks like it is right on top of the snake. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it isn't.

If you already had the 105 (or similar macro), it would be a no brainer - get the 180. But if you are only going to have one macro lens, the 150 is a better compromise, IMHO.

Also remember that you can shoot from further away and crop a little bit. You don't need to fill the frame with your subject's eye to get an eye shot.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

I agree with Chris. I use a 100 mm macro (Canon), mostly for venomous, and only rarely find myself wishing for anything longer (although it does happen of course). Quite the contrary, I ended up buying a 50 mm macro to allow me to stay close enough to large animals to contrl them. Posing an animal and then having to take several steps back to fit it in the frame is not all that helpful.

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

I don't disagree with Chris. As I mentioned, long macros require you to be far from an animal if you are trying to take a picture of more than just a little part of its body. The 90-105mm focal length lenses are more useful for general herp photography. However, I definitely feel the longer macros give an advantage whe shooting skittish animals (like the anole posted above) because you don't have to approach them as closely.

Derek, before you spend a lot of money on a 180mm macro, you might want to actually see how one feels on your camera and take a few shots. The long macros serve a somewhat more specialized purpose.

Regards,
WK

I've decided to got with the 150mm because it is in between the 105 and 180. I have a 50mm, 28-120mm, and a 300mm. There is a macro function on the 300, but closest distance is 6 feet. I use the 28-120 95% of the time. Like Chris said, I can always crop to get just a little closer in. Thank you again for all of your help. Next, I'll work on getting a speedlight. There is really only a choice of 2 that I like. Derek