LenScore Updates = Strong Sigma Showing

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have used the various Sigma 'macro' models on occasion. Good to excellent, but not outstanding.

The various Micro-Nikkors are equal or better, with the exception of the AFS 105/2.8 VR that delivered a disappointing performance and quickly was replaced by the APO-Lanthar 125/2.5. Thus this Nikkor has the dubious distinction of being the *only* F-mount Micro-Nikkor *not* in my possession.

Users should remember not to stop down the Micro-Nikkors beyond f/11 unless this is deemed unavoidable.

[bjornthun]

We tend to prefer that which reinforces our preferences

However, the DxO Mark also scores the Sigma Art 85mm similarly.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sony-FE-85mm-F14-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sigma-85mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon__388_814_1680_1035_1777_0

Did you notice all the smileys in my post?

Though I'm using Sony now, Nikon Nikkor macro lenses are a very happy memory, first rate, except for one the 105VR, same lens that Bjørn Rørslett mentioned, though not the same sample.

[MILLIREHM]

I owned and used virtually every Canon macro lens ever made, and the Sigma outperformed them, to the degree reflected in LenScore.

While the Nikkor macro lenses rate higher than their Canon equivalents, the Sigma 180 macro outshines the Nikkor macros tested.

Also, I read in multiple reviews how the Sigma 180 macro blew the rusty hinges off Nikon's 200mm equivalent.

Thus, while not owning any Nikkor macros, as somebody who's been almost entirely a macro shooter for 8 years, I am pretty hip on "what's what" concerning macro lenses.

The Nikkor 105 VR II is very, very close, however ... just shorter.

This is perhaps my favorite review on the Sigma 180:

https://gormteper.net/reviews/sigma-180mm-f2-8-os-macro

But there are others:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/180mm-f2.8-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro/review
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-180mm-f-2-8-apo-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro-lens-review-20912
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=355

Jack

Thanks for further explaining
There are ratings and reviews that can give some orientation. There is the approach to give the most weight on those.
For me the practical experience the lens gives me is more important, showing the appearance and the "personality" of a lens as well, beyond raw numbers

[Jack Dahlgren]

I think I am completely screwed.

These scores over a thousand continue to diminish my existing lenses, most of which are up to 40 years old. Probably the best of them would reach 700 or so. Vignetting and the wide open haziness of my 35mm f/1.4 would limit it to maybe 600. Combine that with a camera which is a few years old and is probably a 75% or less as well as handholding vs. tripod (responsible for at least 24.3% quality loss) and we can all do the math together: lens * camera * technique = quality

(1430/600) * (0.75) * (0.757) = 23.8216783216783%

I'm so sad.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Fortunately, that metric has nothing to do with picture quality. A point sadly forgotten in so many cases.

[John Koerner]

I have used the various Sigma 'macro' models on occasion. Good to excellent, but not outstanding.

If you read the comparisons, the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS is significantly better then the Sigma 150mm as well as the Sigma 180 f/3.5 it replaced.

I have used the various Sigma 'macro' models on occasion. Good to excellent, but not outstanding.

As Nikon and Canon macros go, the Sigma 180 f/2.8 is outstanding.

As Nikon and Canon super-telephotos, the Otus lenses, etc. go, the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 macro is decent to pretty good.

The various Micro-Nikkors are equal or better, with the exception of the AFS 105/2.8 VR that delivered a disappointing performance and quickly was replaced by the APO-Lanthar 125/2.5. Thus this Nikkor has the dubious distinction of being the *only* F-mount Micro-Nikkor *not* in my possession.

This is true, based on the elder Sigma macros.

I don't think a single Nikkor macro equals the results of the particular Sigma 180mm to which I referred, as tested by a wide variety of sources.

I too went for the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 APO Macro, after reading the praise Michael Erlewine wrote about it, and why. (Apparently, he got his information from you and Eric.)

I used my Sigma 180mm macro as a telephoto also, so I liked the AF, and made use of it often (as well as the reach).

However, after upgrading to the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II (a lens with better specs than either macro), I no longer needed the fast AF of the Sigma, and use my 300mm as both a telephoto and a macro on "fast" or "flighty" objects.

For static macro shots, where I have the time to compose, I really enjoy the Voigtländer and can't see parting with it, ever. Also use it for short telephoto on still subjects, such as basking lizards, or portraits.

[John Koerner]

Fortunately, that metric has nothing to do with picture quality. A point sadly forgotten in so many cases.

Depends on what you're shooting, and why.

To say a score of 600 in resolution has "nothing" to do with clarity is erroneous: it can have everything to do with quality.

While I get your point, the simple fact is ... if you take a man with optimal technique ... if he uses a low-end macro lens, over a low-end sensor, he will NOT get the same-quality results as applying that same technique using a high-end lens over a high-end sensor.

Not a chance.

Same with a bird photographer ... using a "budget" lens and camera will never yield the same results as that same technique applied to the very finest gear.

Your point *only* has to do with 'creative art' type photography, where vision and mood are conveyed, not for highly-specialized efforts that require the best in resolution/bokeh/color/CA and (therefore) equipment to achieve.

[John Koerner]

Did you notice all the smileys in my post?

I hope you noticed mine

[Bjørn Rørslett]

If photography only was about getting [technically] perfect images, it would be a very boring pastime. With little to show for it.

[John Koerner]

True, Bjørn, although (again) some people are artistic photographers, whilst others are scientific.

With regard to performance, and back on topic (Sigma's strong showing) ... I am not sure if anyone noticed, but DPReview also made its own comments on a recent post regarding the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art A New King is Crowned:

"DxO just published its score for the Nikon mount Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG HSM A. Drumroll please: it received the highest score ever for a lens on DxO, a 50 when mounted to a D810 and a 51 when mounted to the D800E. What's even more impressive is that it actually scored a perfect 36 P-Mpix for image sharpness on a D810, which has a 36MP sensor."

LensRentals comes up with a similar conclusion:

"From an MTF standpoint, it’s better than any other 85 except the Otus, and it makes a very respectable showing against that fine lens."

[Bjørn Rørslett]

In the end, it is the photographer who makes the picture. A good photographer can make excellent stuff with modest gear, a mediocre photographer cannot even with top equipment. I would wish that universal truth be more acknowledged.

[John Koerner]

In the end, it is the photographer who makes the picture. A good photographer can make excellent stuff with modest gear, a mediocre photographer cannot even with top equipment. I would wish that universal truth be more acknowledged.

I think it's a "chicken and the egg" dilemma.

A good photographer will make better images with better equipment than he will with so-so equipment.

Also, it is impossible to get certain images without certain equipment.

Can you take a 3:1 macro image without the proper equipment? No.
Can you photograph a bird 300 yds (metres) away without the proper equipment? No.

Depending on your goals, equipment matters. From there, it then becomes a matter of scrutinizing equipment capable of producing the goals.

Because, regardless of goals, the better a photographer gets, the better gear he tends to desire for himself.

Hence these "gear threads" on this website (lenses / cameras) being the most-read/most-posted to.

Or, dare I say?, hence the title for the forum itself: NikonGEAR (not Nikon philosophy/technique )

[PedroS]

I'm not on that debate... I don't care what every other uses, as long as it serves well and allows some fun...
Life throw me a lot of friends that are a much better photographers than me. I was never great on art, but did very well in science.
I did in my time much work on medicine macro, and one thing not well documented in those "numbered" tests is color reproduction. Skin tones are hard, very hard to reproduce, and in medicine macro work, skin tones are a must have. To reach that goal, no Sigma was there, neither all Nikon did. And yes, both the 150 and the 180 were tested...

And still, no one gave me yet the answer to my quiz... why, being so good to outstanding, are so many Art lenses on the second-hand market?

From my experience, and again, gained with long talks and hours with my friends, the Art ones have a definitive good to great IQ, no doubt, but they bring within the bag, a very downside feature, named, boring factor. That could be the greatest reasons why, after some time, they go away from previous proud owners.

[Ethan]

Fact of the matter is that Zeiss is taking a beating and has to contend with small pie.

There is no contest with the 85mm as Sigma beats Zeiss hand down if not only for the AF.

The Nikon 105/1.4E trounced the Zeiss 135 if not only for the AF.

Zeiss does show on paper better CA/CL and sharpness. But I need a lens to use and not to look at.

Bye Bye Zeiss. you're screwed and this is just the beginning until Canon starts playing catch up1

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The choice of 'Nikongear' as a site name is based on history, not gear preference as such.

Our community includes top photographers and gear heads in a healthy mixture. Most members in either group, or intermediately positioned, understand only too well they cannot buy gear to become better photographers. Manufacturers and photo dealers are very grateful to those who don't.