Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:11 pm

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:52 am 
Does anybody have experience with the Sigma 50mm 2.8 D macro lens? I've been set on getting the newer 2.8 EX DG, currently 300 on Adorama, but today I noticed the older lens finishing for around half that much on ebay.

I don't mind an older lens at all if it will save money, so I'm wondering if anybody knows how this compares to the new version, reviews of it seem to be all for the new lens.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 8003
Location: Germany
There's a review of the new version here. 4 strats show that this is a very good lens.
And the review says: "The new DG (Digital) variant features an improved lens coating optimized for digital sensors." That implies that only the coating was changed. If that is the case the older lens should have equal sharpness be would be more susceptible to flare and ghosting in contra-light situations. But those can be avoided if you're carefully setting up macro shots.
Be aware though that I'm only speculating here...

The only thing that would hold me back is the short focal length for a macro. Normally 90mm/1o5mm or even 150mm are preferred over the short focal length macros of 50/60mm.

Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D810+assorted lenses

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:47 am 
Hmm, seems like there isn't much of a difference then, I'll probably go with the cheaper of the 2 if I decide to get the Sigma. The point about focal length is very true though, and mainly what has been holding up my decision for some time.

I'm waffling between the 50mm Sigma and the new 85mm 3.5 micro Nikkor. I definitely wont be upgrading from the D90 for a loong time so DX format isn't an issue, and almost the same minimum focus distance as the much more expensive 105mm 2.8 micro Nikkor at the cost of a slightly slower aperture is very appealing.

On the other hand, I see the Sigma as serving a dual function, because i have also been in the market for a Prime lens, something i can take into cities that doesn't call "steal me" quite as loudly as the hefty 18-105 zoom. So in that regard, a nice prime that also has 1:1 macro is very appealing, I just can't figure how much I will miss the longer minimum focus length if I go that route. aaaah decisions decisions.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group