Sigma 150 macro

[postcardcv]

I am selling my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to get a lighter lens for candid shots. I was planning on getting the Canon 70-200 f4 as it's about half the weight of the Sigma and the AF seems very fast. However I'm now wondering about getting the Sigma 150 f2.8 macro instead. So I was wondering if anyone could tell me what it's like as a portrait/candid lens? Is the AF fast and what's the IQ like?

[greenbunion]

The AF is great as a macro lens - very quick. No reason to believe it would be slow when used elsewhere. Image quality of my macro shots has been excellent with really good bokeh.

[Christine]

Pete,I keep trying for this lens on e-bay.I have read amazing reviews,albeit for macro,as opposed to portrait.I do have the Canon 70-200 F4 ISL ,it is great for portrait shots,and I have taken some good close up bird images with this lens.I am looking for the 150 Sigma,because one can focus from a distance for Butterflies etc.I do have a bid on e-bay at the moment.If I am successful and do receive the lens,will take some shots and show them.

Pete,I have just remebered the site,re the rewiews,Fred Miranda.Well worth a view.

[Markulous]

I've the Sigma 105mm, find it OK for focus (on my Sigma SD10 - slower on Canon 350D) but almost always use manual anyway, excellent for portraits and brilliant for macro!

[drmaturin]

I advise caution:

Based on the reviews, I bought a Sigma 150mm last fall to hopefully give me greater working distance than my Micro Nikkor 105 D (pre-VR), especially since it was supposed to behave well with the Sigma 1.4x converter I already had.

I immediately tested it against my Nikkor. The Nikkor was so much better in all tests (conducted with and without flash and always on a solid tripod.)
I used feathers as the macro test subject because the level of detail is incredible right across the frame. i used a brick wall to test the long distance.
The Sigma images had poor contrast, an ugly, yellowish color cast, and weren't nearly as sharp as the Nikkor. The difference was huge. I couldn't believe it at first. To top it off, the Sigma underexposed a lot of the flash macros. I must have gotten one of the bad copies that seem to regularly slip past Sigma's Q.C. dept. I retested two more times, and did some real world stuff. Nope, the lens is not good, at least when compared to the Nikkor.
I couldn't return it, having purchased it at one of the grey-market shops in Seoul (lesson learned) and went on a long holiday before I could send it in for servicing, which I will now do.
Long story, but it shows that reviews are not always indicative of the actual product that you may take home.
Obviously there are tons of happy campers out there with this lens, but not me.
You should also know that it's quite a fat and heavy lens, and with no VR hand-held at that magnification become problematic in lower light. Flash and/or high iso will be called for.
Personally, I'd get a shorter f.l. lens for portraits any way. There are lots of lenses lighter, cheaper, and just as sharp as even a good copy of the Sigma. Or that Canon zoom. You might miss the bokeh of 2.8, though.

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by drmaturin

Long story, but it shows that reviews are not always indicative of the actual product that you may take home.

One of the most valuable statement in the forum..if I may say.

[andy153]

I couldn't agree more Rudra - getting your hands on the actual item, taking a few test shots with it, and having a good dealer who will hold onto the item for a day or two, while you do your OWN evaluation is worth more than all the reviews ever written.

[blackmarlin]

I have the 105mm Sigma macro and I have had some stunning macro shots with this one and it has also worked great as a portrait lens. This would be the lens I would go for.

Alan

[postcardcv]

thanks one and all - in the end I went with the original plan and kept my 105 f2.8 and got a 70-200 f4 for portraits.

[Christine]

I now have the 150 Sigma.Just waiting to find some subjects.