1:2 photo - Nikkor 300mm+17E TC versus Sigma 180mm lens

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

JohnKoerner
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:08 am
Location: San Dimas, CA
Contact:

Post by JohnKoerner »

Lou Jost wrote:
...the vastly-superior Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II will beat the Sigma with an extender, at 1:2...
John, is that particular conclusion based on your actual experience?
Yes.

I can take macro images, with a 2x Extender, from 7 FEET away, that are easily as good as the Sigma creeping-up to 19" away.

I can also take images, without an extender, and get the same clean results.

Image
25% crop, D500 + 2x TC III, 7' away


Image
80% crop, D800 straight, 15' away


Image
50% crop, D500 + 2x TC III, 15' away (blurry face, I know, but it was windy and I was quite a distance)


Will never go back to an AF macro again ... where I have to creep-up to 18" to get a shot of a butterfly :D

Why bother, when I can stand 7-15 feet away, crop, and get the same-quality result with a high-end 300mm ... because the lens quality is so much better 8)

Can you imagine what these would look like, from 7-15' away, using a macro lens :shock:

Can you imagine what it would be like, to try to take an image of a bird, from 100' away ... with a 180mm macro lens + 2x extender ... and crop-in? :shock:

A high-end 300mm does a far better job of being a 180mm macro ... than a 180mm macro does of being a 300mm ;)

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

John, thanks for that clarification. It is hard to tell from these images, but they seem to lack butterfly-scale-level detail, which would be present on photos with the same FOV on a dedicated Sigma macro (see Robert O'Toole's many photos from the 180 and 150mm Sigma macros at https://www.closeuphotography.com/closeup-1/). Granted this could be just this forum's web reduction ruining the detail in your pictures. Also natural light (the norm for 300mm macro photos) doesn't stop subject motion as well as flash, which freezes subject motion and is commonly used with shorter macro lenses, so that may be influencing things.

JohnKoerner
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:08 am
Location: San Dimas, CA
Contact:

Post by JohnKoerner »

Lou Jost wrote:John, thanks for that clarification. It is hard to tell from these images, but they seem to lack butterfly-scale-level detail, which would be present on photos with the same FOV on a dedicated Sigma macro (see Robert O'Toole's many photos from the 180 and 150mm Sigma macros at https://www.closeuphotography.com/closeup-1/). Granted this could be just this forum's web reduction ruining the detail in your pictures. Also natural light (the norm for 300mm macro photos) doesn't stop subject motion as well as flash, which freezes subject motion and is commonly used with shorter macro lenses, so that may be influencing things.

Hi again;

I looked at the photos you provided in the link. Mr. O'Toole's work is sublime.

With ample experience in butterfly photography, my belief is most of his images are taken either staged or under early-morning, absolutely-still, absolutely-ideal conditions.

The dragonfly images he has are about 5x the size of the small butterfly I had in 2 of my own (Chlosyne californica), and yet he is still pretty far away with his macro. I would have filled the frame, from twice the distance, with my 300 mm.

Funny you mention 'scale detail,' as I also don't see any evidence of this in a single instance of his images either. (Upon closer inspection, most of his images in fact are smaller than my own, with blown highlights in a few cases, and far less detail.)

Each of the 3 images I posted were taken mid-day, at over 100 degrees, in the windy, CA deserts ... when butterflies won't let you get any closer than 3-5' ... and the wind is causing grass/flowers to sway 6" to a foot in one direction, and then the next. And then I cropped these images to boot. They were authentic, impromptu wildlife images.

It is my belief Mr. O'Toole would never get pristine images under the same conditions, either.

I know for a 100% fact that the 300mm VR II out-performs the daylights out of the Sigma macros. I have had them both. I know.

But you can believe that the $1600 Sigma out-performs the $5400 Nikkor if you want ;)

And conditions matter 8)

Anyway, I respect the Sigma 180 mm macro for what it is, within its class, but it is nothing compared to the 300mm VR II (which is to be expected, given its price point).

Have Mr. O'toole use one of the Sigma's + a 2x Extender ... to capture a bird from 100' away ... crop it 50% (because that's what he'll have to do) ... and have him send a 1250 mpx image so we can both compare 'the feather detail' to the detail in my cropped butterfly photos above ;)

Hope you see my point 8)

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I'm totally on board with the value of long lenses in getting good natural-light wildlife shots, and that includes insects. I do that myself. It is often impossible to get close enough for a shorter lens, and the natural light often adds much to the picture and increases visual diversity in a portfolio.

My point was strictly about image quality at higher m like m=0.5. In my experience the image quality of a good dedicated short macro lens at m=0.5 is generally much better than even the best not-optimized-for-macro, not-designed-for-extension long telephoto lens. It isn't a matter of price difference, it is difference in optimization. I suspect that an old $200 Nikon 55mm f2.8 lens will beat a $10000 600mm Nikon f/2.8 at m=0.5. I have some good short telephotos (for example an Oly Four-thirds 150mm f/2.0, $2500) and in the past my Nikon 400mm f/3.5 ($4000) was like an extension of my body, but at m=0.5 my much less expensive dedicated macro lenses were better. Wouldn't you agree that if we take ease of use and ability to get the shot out of the equation, the image quality of a good dedicated macro lens would beat that of a long telephoto at m=0.5?

I admit I do not have the latest Nikon 300+mm super-telephotos, so I am open to being corrected on this.

JohnKoerner
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:08 am
Location: San Dimas, CA
Contact:

Post by JohnKoerner »

Lou Jost wrote:I'm totally on board with the value of long lenses in getting good natural-light wildlife shots, and that includes insects. I do that myself. It is often impossible to get close enough for a shorter lens, and the natural light often adds much to the picture and increases visual diversity in a portfolio.

My point was strictly about image quality at higher m like m=0.5. In my experience the image quality of a good dedicated short macro lens at m=0.5 is generally much better than even the best not-optimized-for-macro, not-designed-for-extension long telephoto lens. It isn't a matter of price difference, it is difference in optimization. I suspect that an old $200 Nikon 55mm f2.8 lens will beat a $10000 600mm Nikon f/2.8 at m=0.5. I have some good short telephotos (for example an Oly Four-thirds 150mm f/2.0, $2500) and in the past my Nikon 400mm f/3.5 ($4000) was like an extension of my body, but at m=0.5 my much less expensive dedicated macro lenses were better. Wouldn't you agree that if we take ease of use and ability to get the shot out of the equation, the image quality of a good dedicated macro lens would beat that of a long telephoto at m=0.5?

I admit I do not have the latest Nikon 300+mm super-telephotos, so I am open to being corrected on this.

Lou, it all depends on what our goals are.

If I want to get true 1:1, with ultimate detail, I would deploy my D810 + Voigtländer 125mm Apo-Lanthar and get better critical detail than the Sigma. (At the pixel level, probably better than my 300mm.)

If I wanted even more detail, I could reverse a prime, and get scale-close, at greater than 1:1, for even more detail, but that would involve killing the specimen.

However, I am not that worried about 'scale detail' :)

My goal is to capture an 'in-situ' live shot of a butterfly I happened to see ... and pixel-peeping at the scale level was not a consideration.

I am usually after form, color, composition, bokeh ... and I am consistently able to achieve this ... without creeping up-close to the animal on a hot windy day ... but from a comfortable distance at an effective 900mm focal length.

Perhaps creeping up-close with the Sigma might have worked ... perhaps I would have scared them off, I am not sure.

Image-quality-wise, it 1:2 it's close, advantage probably to the macro. At 1:4, I would bet the farm on the 300mm.

My Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar gives me a similar (even better) 1:1 macro tool than the Sigma ... but, more and more, this vintage lens stays holstered on my hip ... for anything 1:2 and up ... because the pleasant image quality I get, from 7' away, using a super-telephoto is 'good enough.'

By contrast, for birds, as good as my Voigtländer is (and the Sigma was), they both are simply not good enough :(

I use my macros now, only for stationary targets (with a low % chance of flying/crawling away) ... or if I really do need a 1:1 or beyond.

Others might have different goals, and that's okay too.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Yep, we agree. And I envy your Apo-Lanthar.....

I should add that some recent Sigma lenses are really good. Maybe not Apo-Lanthar good, but still good. Their ART lenses are often better than the corresponding Nikon lenses.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

John wrote:Why don't you rate the Sigma 180mm with an extender, and see how it performs at 300mm, compared to the Nikkor PF at its native 300mm? The Sigma will fail too.
To be fair, it wasn't the point of Leon's test.
Chris R

JohnKoerner
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:08 am
Location: San Dimas, CA
Contact:

Post by JohnKoerner »

Lou Jost wrote:Yep, we agree. And I envy your Apo-Lanthar.....
Thanks, I love it :)


Lou Jost wrote:I should add that some recent Sigma lenses are really good. Maybe not Apo-Lanthar good, but still good. Their ART lenses are often better than the corresponding Nikon lenses.
Like I said, I wrote a 4,000-word article praising the Sigma macro (for its class). And, yes, Sigma is coming out with some great lenses. The newer Nikkor FL ED super teles, and E primes, are at a much higher level than Nikkor's elder G lenses too. My own 300mm VI II G ought to upgraded to an FL ED soon as well.

I shoot manual mostly (vintage glass), but my 300mm and VL Apo are my two favs.



_______________



ChrisR wrote: To be fair, it wasn't the point of Leon's test.
Hello. Leon's test was one-sided, putting a TC on a mid-level 300 and comparing at 1:2 with a very good dedicated macro.

I thought I was being fair by flipping the test in reverse: putting the TC on the Sigma 180 and comparing it to the native 300mm unencumbered. I would be even more confident in the VR II.

Maybe this weekend I will take images at a precisely-measured 1:2 with the VL 125 ... and with the high-end 300 ... and let yall decide :)

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Maybe this weekend I will take images at a precisely-measured 1:2 with the VL 125 ... and with the high-end 300 ... and let yall decide
I'm ready to be surprised...

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

JohnKoerner wrote:
Funny you mention 'scale detail,' as I also don't see any evidence of this in a single instance of his images either. (Upon closer inspection, most of his images in fact are smaller than my own, with blown highlights in a few cases, and far less detail.)
Hi Lou, Hi John,

John is right, I only photograph when the wind is still, living near the pacific in So Cal that can be almost impossible, so I like to use flash to get great pixel level sharpness.

This is a good example to show detail I work hard for. The first is cropped to fi t the others are at 100% magnification.

Sigma 150 Nikon D810 1/160 f/8 ISO 200 single Nikon SB-R200 flash shot on tripod.

Image
Image
Image

BTW John, we talked a few times online years ago, I was visiting in FL and you were based there at that time and getting ready to move back to CA I believe?

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:Yep, we agree. And I envy your Apo-Lanthar.....

I should add that some recent Sigma lenses are really good. Maybe not Apo-Lanthar good, but still good. Their ART lenses are often better than the corresponding Nikon lenses.
What we need is an modern 1:1 macro lens shootout including Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm. I owned the APO-Lanthar 125mm and the 180mm and they were impressive in IQ and build but, I sold them since I was too worried about getting them wet or dropping one so I sold them and made a nice profit. Also the APO-Lanthars don't us IF (internal focus) to focus close so for me they were not so easy to use in the field because of the long physical length of the lens and the working distance was really long! Too long in some cases.

The only site I have ever seen that compared the APO-Lanthars is Photozone.de. From what I recall when I owned the lenses, the 125 and 180 were very low lateral CAs, very good, and just about LoCA free, the 90mm was about double CAs and had purple fringing.

Okay I got curious and looked them up.

Here are the links. You might be surprised!

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/267-v ... rt--review

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/66 ... 8oseosapsc

You cannot compare the MTF sharpness numbers since the tests were done on different Canon bodies.

I would like to see these re-done on modern high pixel count body, Nikon D850 or Sonly A7RII anyone?

First the Voigtlander 125mm.

Image

Than the Sigma 150 OS.
Image

The Sigma has better correction, great sharpness, AF and OS.

Hope this helps.

Robert

JohnKoerner
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:08 am
Location: San Dimas, CA
Contact:

Post by JohnKoerner »

RobertOToole wrote: Hi Lou, Hi John,

John is right, I only photograph when the wind is still, living near the pacific in So Cal that can be almost impossible, so I like to use flash to get great pixel level sharpness.

This is a good example to show detail I work hard for. The first is cropped to fi t the others are at 100% magnification.

Sigma 150 Nikon D810 1/160 f/8 ISO 200 single Nikon SB-R200 flash shot on tripod.

BTW John, we talked a few times online years ago, I was visiting in FL and you were based there at that time and getting ready to move back to CA I believe?
Well, hello, stranger :)

And ... yes ... here I am in CA (really missing FL).

It was so easy to find jumpers and all kind of arthropods in the moist, 'Florid' state ... much much more difficult in the dry, arid state.

Beautiful images!

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

JohnKoerner wrote:......And ... yes ... here I am in CA (really missing FL).

It was so easy to find jumpers and all kind of arthropods in the moist, 'Florid' state ... much much more difficult in the dry, arid state.
Yes, that is very true. I am looking forward to getting back to FL soon to visit my mother and make some time to get out and shoot some macro when I am there.
JohnKoerner wrote:Beautiful images!
Thanks!

Robert

JohnKoerner
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:08 am
Location: San Dimas, CA
Contact:

Post by JohnKoerner »

RobertOToole wrote: What we need is an modern 1:1 macro lens shootout including Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm. I owned the APO-Lanthar 125mm and the 180mm and they were impressive in IQ and build but, I sold them since I was too worried about getting them wet or dropping one so I sold them and made a nice profit. Also the APO-Lanthars don't us IF (internal focus) to focus close so for me they were not so easy to use in the field because of the long physical length of the lens and the working distance was really long! Too long in some cases.
Roger that, sir. I would love to see this as well. Photozone tested the Voigtländer macro on a Canon 350D, so I really don't take their results seriously.

Also, the majority consensus of most lensmen is the Voigtländer 180 generally is not has highly-regarded as the 125 Macro.

I had similar concerns as yours, regarding the weather sealing, but having shot it under a multitude of field conditions, for over a year now, I am not worried about it anymore.

For AF purposes (making sure I nail a shot, before the butterfly leaves, e.g.), I rely on my Nikkor 300 VR II ... so any advantage the Sigma had in AF is dwarfed compared to the AF of the Nikkor (not to mention the reach).

For intimate 1:1 images, such as you posted, I rely on my Voigtländer Apo.

For pure macro pleasure, the 630° of focus throw is just so much more precise, so much more intimate, than flipping a joystick dot and pressing the shutter, that it's almost another world, really. Joystick-flipping is erratic at best.

With the Voigtländer, I use my eye to decide where to focus, and then gradually turn the smooth-focusing element, little-by-little, and it's just a 100x more pleasurable, precise field macro-shooting experience compared to the Sigma. Moreover, the 630° of focus throw lends itself to being able to produce stacks, right there, with its subtle gradations of focus-turning.

By contrast, even when I try to use my focus ring on the 300mm (or the 180 Sigma before), it's just a joke focus-ring compared the exquisite precision of the Voigtländer.

Here is a stack with the Voigtländer on a D810:

Image
52 images @ f/4


Here are some single images:

Image
Single Image @ f/5.6


Image
Single Image @ f/5.6


Image
Single Image @ f/16

The subtle colors, gradations, micro-contrast, and ephemeral bokeh just blow the Sigma out of the water IMO.
(Even @ f/16 there is much, much better color/contrast detail, et al, again imo).

Here are pixel-level images of the butterfly compared to yours (with the butterfly itself already 1/3rd the size of your posted damselfly):

Image

Image

(I now just added some pixel-level images of the bee as well, again much smaller than your damselfly):

Image

Image

Again, having used both (on both Canon and Nikon, actually), I don't think the Sigma can, in any way, shape, or form, compare to the Voigtlander 125mm Macro in resolution, subtle color rendering, micro-contrast, bokeh, etc.

The Sigma's color-rendition is much more basic, harsh, and it totally lacks the realistic subtlety (again, imo).


RobertOToole wrote: The only site I have ever seen that compared the APO-Lanthars is Photozone.de. From what I recall when I owned the lenses, the 125 and 180 were very low lateral CAs, very good, and just about LoCA free, the 90mm was about double CAs and had purple fringing.
Resolution, low CA, subtle color nuances, and exquisite bokeh are the mantra of the Apo 125. (The 90 is not in the same league.)


RobertOToole wrote: Okay I got curious and looked them up.

Here are the links. You might be surprised!

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/267-v ... rt--review

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/66 ... 8oseosapsc

You cannot compare the MTF sharpness numbers since the tests were done on different Canon bodies.
I agree, they cannot be compared. Putting a Zeiss-level lens, like the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar, on an 8mpx Canon 350D to run a test is a joke.

The 50D, where they put the Sigma, isn't much better, but it has twice the mpx as the 350D, yet both are very low-grade sensors.

These tests mean nothing IMO.


RobertOToole wrote: I would like to see these re-done on modern high pixel count body, Nikon D850 or Sonly A7RII anyone?

First the Voigtlander 125mm.

Than the Sigma 150 OS.

The Sigma has better correction, great sharpness, AF and OS.
Again, the tests mean nothing, testing the Voigtlander on a dog 350D and the Sigma on a dog with twice the mpx.

We agree the tests should be run again, on high-end cameras, in order to reach a definitive conclusion.

One thing you omitted from your comments, was the 10-year-outdated opinion on bokeh: The Sigma lens delivers good results here but it is no "cream machine".

By contrast, the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm Macro is "The Cream Machine" 8)


RobertOToole wrote: Hope this helps.

Robert
Not really.

I have used them both and would never use the Sigma instead of the Voigtlander. (Really, not ever ... unless I didn't have my 300mm and needed AF.)

If I have the time to compose and focus in optimal light, I would choose using Voigtlander 125 f/2 Apo Macro 100% of the time over the Sigma.

(However, I would choose the Sigma over any Canon / Nikon / Sony AF macro!)

The best way to try to underscore my original point can be found at LenScore. (Click Scores > Primes.)

Here is a chop-job of their ratings with my summary below:
  • Image
First of all, LenScore tests all lenses on the same, custom 200 MPX sensor, so the results actually mean something.
(Testing one lens on an 8mp dog, another on a 15 mpx dog, and another lens on a modern 36 mpx optimum sensor is a ridiculous way to compare lens performance.)

LenScore bridges that gap by testing all lenses across the same sensor. The above represents where the Sigma stands in relation to some of the best lenses ... as well as where the lowly Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF stands ... as well as where the sublime Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II stands.

That said, here is my personal breakdown based on actual experience:

Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II:
Simply out of the league of any macro lens. Not even in the same ballpark. Resolution, Contrast, Bokeh, and CA handling is between 20%-to 50% superior to lowly macro lenses ... and is 3x to 10x more expensive. A totally different-level optic.

Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*:
Not a true macro lens, but at 1:4 it is in the ballpark. This is a truly great lens, "The bridge," separating the best in the world from the 'almosts' ...

Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm: (LenScore did not actually test the Voigtlander.)
I subjectively-place the Voigtlander (with a green arrow) because of the 100% unanimous view of lensmen who rate this lens above the Zeiss Makro, but below the Apo Sonnat T*. It's not quite at the level of the legendary Zeiss 135mm Apo, in sharpness or in contrast, but the Voigtlander is considered to have creamier bokeh and more subtle color gradation, with similar CA control. It beats the Zeiss Makro Planar virtually across the board. All 3 lenses are made by Cosina. Every knowledgeable lesman I have ever known rates the Voigtlander Apo at some point between the Zeiss 135 APO and the Zeiss 100mm Macro Planar. And the Voigtlander Apo has the advantage of being the only true 1:1 between them.

Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 Makro Planar:
A legendary lens for resolution and bokeh, at the macro level, the Zeiss nontheless disappoints and is not considered 'world class' due to its sub-optimal CA rendering.

Sigma 180mm f/2.8 'Apo' Macro:
A good, consumer-level AF macro lens. Does not really qualify for 'Apo' status, as it is nowhere near truly color-corrected. Respectable resolution, contrast and bokeh, the Sigma 180mm macro is superior to its Nikon and Canon counterparts, but it falls short of being a truly world-class lens.

Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR:
Budget-level 300mm field lens. Has nowhere near the Resolution, Contrast, Bokeh, or CA correction of Nikon's elite 300mm f/2.8 VR II lens.


With these scores, and with this perspective in mind, it is easy to see why the O/P handicapping the bottom-level 300mm f/4 PF lens with a 1.7 TC ... and testing against the Sigma 180 macro ... produced unfavorable results.

I reiterate that, with 30% better Resolution, Color, and Contrast ... and up to 50% superior Bokeh and CA correction ... the elite-level Nikkor 300mm VR II can be cropped-in close and produce better images than the Sigma 180mm macro ... and the Voigtlander for that matter ... @ 1:4 (likely 1:2 compared to the Sigma).

I will post visual results this weekend.

Cheers,

Jack

JohnKoerner
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:08 am
Location: San Dimas, CA
Contact:

Post by JohnKoerner »

Lou Jost wrote:I'm ready to be surprised...
Stay tuned 8)

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic