Just bought an antique but its brilliant!
 

Hey Guys

I was in Brighton this weekend and as always walked by Clock Tower Cameras along the lanes and saw a rather lovely looking Sigma 180mm f3.5 macro so had a look and played a little. They kindly put in on a very cheap Nikon D300 (£450) and I was blown away so after much negotiating (with me winning) I bought it. Its built like a tank and weighs a lot but comes with a great tripod collar and on my monopod gave me some truly wonderful, bright, colourful shots which I intend to post in due course (if anyone looks any more). Has anyone else used or owned one of these??

Not familiar with the lens, but I bet it would make a pretty good outdoor portrait lens.

Was the lens £450? Or the d300?

It's a good lens and was probably discontinued after running alongside the same company's 150mm F2.8 macro for some time (and especially after they upgraded that lens to an OS type). This company still seems to have it in stock: http://www.microglobe.co.uk/sigma-18...ns-p-1900.html and I'm not surprised at that price! It was heavily discounted, I believe, to get rid of old stock so they'll not attract too much custom at their current price.

Whatever, it's a long way short of being categorised as 'antique'

I considered one when looking for a longer focal length macro lens, but in the end went for the tamron 180 f3.5, which has the same features, excellent image quality but is quite a bit lighter.

I don't think any autofocus lens qualifies as antique - though the 1981-4 SMC Pentax AF 35-70/2.8 for the Pentax MEF might just. (The first mass produced AF SLR lens).

I wouldn't consider my 1970s manual focus lenses to be antiques either.
The oldest lens I've used on my SLR is a 1930's Kodak Astigmat, I think it might be reasonable to class that as an antique, but for true antiques you have to go further back to the brass bodied lenses I've got for large format work.

Having used the Nikon 105 and the 85mm i would say its better for image and built from armour from a tank as its solid. Considering the cost of the 85mm at £500 plus i actually thing that its worth it at that price as the image quality is exceptional. The antique mention was a joke by the way...!

Sorry, when i say antique, i was pulling legs as its run was from 2001 to 2005 but the way its built is fantastic. I appreciate an antique is say 50 years or older. It makes me laugh that people are happy to go and spend £500 on a plastic lens that is actually pretty poor. I tried the Nikon 85mm and it was rubbish, the Tamron 90mm was far better.

Was it really that much brighter as they are both F3.5 and when shooting the other day, it was almost over exposing. I looked at reviews for both and they were much of a muchness.

The D300 was £450.

that's a very good price for a d300, I took a chance on eBay and bought one for a similar price, luckily it was in fantastic condition with a low shutter count.

Rough selling price seems to be nearer £600.

Which 85mm Nikon were you referring to?

The 85mm f3.5 isn't one of nikons best lenses and seems to get outperformed by the 90mm tamron.

The 85mm f1.8 and f1.4 on the other hand are stunning lenses. But then you get what you pay for obviously.