Coin photography lens question

astrorat

Hi folks-

First...thank you for everyone who has helped me with this type of question recently.

Do any of you have experience comparing the current models of the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 macro lenses for shooting images.

I am looking to get a longer lens (currently I use a Nikkor 105mm micro for coins and a Nikkor 60mm micro for full slabs on a Nikon D60) to do some better close-up imaging. The Sigma 180mm is actually cheaper than the 150mm, but has a larger f-stop. The online reviews of the 150mm are great, but are mixed for the 180mm.

Any experiences, thoughts, or suggestions?

Lane

Barndog

how far away from your subject do you need to be to use a 180mm macro?

blu62vette

about 28 inches on a morgan dollar that is an estimate my copystand is packed and being shipped.

RWB

For 1:1 reproduction on a full frame CCD (35mm film equivalent), the focal plane will be 180mm from the coin. (I.e.: the distance will equal the focal length of the lens.)

mrearlygold

Fly on the wall:

messydesk

After a cursory comparison of reviews of the two, I'd favor the 180mm. I didn't see any reviews that translated to drawbacks for shooting coins. Since you're not shooting bugs on a blade of grass in the wind, you don't care as much about focus speed. The weight of both lenses is about 2 pounds, which means you better have a sturdy support in either case. I didn't see mention of chromatic abberations being an issue with either lens.

LostSisler

I am looking into buying an all new setup. THe most important thing to me rite now is how well the camera can be controlled by a computer. You would think that this feature would be pretty standard now but it's not.

mgoodm3

You won't notice any difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 except for minimally darker viewfinder with the f3.5. Not a big deal. You won't want to shoot coin images at f/2.8 or f3.5 anyway.

The 180 has 6 cm more minimum focus distance (as measured from the focal plane - i.e. the detector) but the 180 is a larger and longer lens and I think that the working distances are comparable.

coinpictures

I can't speak about the 180mm, but all the pictures at the web site in my sig are done using the Sigma 150mm macro lens. I'm quite happy with it.

airplanenut

I've been using the 180mm for around a year now, and I love it. It's very sharp, though very heavy (about 2 lbs). I don't have experience with the 150, but I've seen good reviews for it, as well.

BillyGoatsGruff

<< <i>about 28 inches on a morgan dollar that is an estimate my copystand is packed and being shipped. >>



Which copy stand did you buy?

MikeInFL

<< <i>Hi folks-

First...thank you for everyone who has helped me with this type of question recently.

Do any of you have experience comparing the current models of the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 macro lenses for shooting images.

I am looking to get a longer lens (currently I use a Nikkor 105mm micro for coins and a Nikkor 60mm micro for full slabs on a Nikon D60) to do some better close-up imaging. The Sigma 180mm is actually cheaper than the 150mm, but has a larger f-stop. The online reviews of the 150mm are great, but are mixed for the 180mm.

Any experiences, thoughts, or suggestions?

Lane >>



The close-up performance of all the lenses you speak of in this thread is very similar. All close focus at 1:1, IIRC.

The difference between them will be working distance, and there won't be an appreciable difference between the 150 and 180, but there will be quite a bit of difference between the 150/180 and 60/105. This extra working distance will typically allow for better (i.e. higher-angle) lighting.

Really, you can't go wrong with either lens, but if choosing between a new 150/180 or a used (wink) 200, I'd get the 200....Mike

blu62vette

<< <i>

<< <i>about 28 inches on a morgan dollar that is an estimate my copystand is packed and being shipped. >>



Which copy stand did you buy? >>



I have a 36" and a 48"

Barndog

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>about 28 inches on a morgan dollar that is an estimate my copystand is packed and being shipped. >>



Which copy stand did you buy? >>



I have a 36" and a 48" >>



size matters?

DieClash

<< <i>You won't notice any difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 except for minimally darker viewfinder with the f3.5. Not a big deal. You won't want to shoot coin images at f/2.8 or f3.5 anyway.

The 180 has 6 cm more minimum focus distance (as measured from the focal plane - i.e. the detector) but the 180 is a larger and longer lens and I think that the working distances are comparable. >>



PM sent!

Why not? I was just about to pull the trigger on a Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.5 Macro USM lens @ $400+. If f/2.8 or f/3.5 are not for coin images then what would you recommend?

FWIW the Canon 180mm f/3.5 Macro lens lists @ $1,500+. Folks, that's serious money for a serious photog buff. My budget is in the $400 range. Not to deter from the OP's query, but how 'bout some recommendations in the affordable range as well as the serious camera hobbyist range?

Cheers!

soty27

I think the only lens you would be able to purchase in the 400.00 range would just be a stock lens of some sort. The 150 or 180 are a bit spendy. I use the 150 and it works great for me however my stock lens that came with my original d40 worked just fine although with the 150 I am able to get a much higher angle of light and in coin photography IMO thats what matters.

astrorat

<< <i>

<< <i>You won't notice any difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 except for minimally darker viewfinder with the f3.5. Not a big deal. You won't want to shoot coin images at f/2.8 or f3.5 anyway.

The 180 has 6 cm more minimum focus distance (as measured from the focal plane - i.e. the detector) but the 180 is a larger and longer lens and I think that the working distances are comparable. >>



PM sent!

Why not? I was just about to pull the trigger on a Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.5 Macro USM lens @ $400+. If f/2.8 or f/3.5 are not for coin images then what would you recommend?

FWIW the Canon 180mm f/3.5 Macro lens lists @ $1,500+. Folks, that's serious money for a serious photog buff. My budget is in the $400 range. Not to deter from the OP's query, but how 'bout some recommendations in the affordable range as well as the serious camera hobbyist range?

Cheers!

>>



While Mark can answer the question with exponentially more expertise than I can, the simple answer is that you will generally not shoot coins with the f-stop at less than 4 due to the loss of depth of field. The "faster" lens (i.e. lower f-stop) is not necessary as you will have enough light that a higher f-stop will be optimal. As least that is how I understand it.

I was just worried about the inherent image quality between the two Sigma lenses.

Lane

mgoodm3

The f/3.5 and f/2.8 are the maximum apertures for the respective lenses. when you look through the viewfinder you are looking through the maximum aperture. A larger maximum (f/2.8) will give a brighter viewfinder image. You look through the maximum aperture for a couple reasons 1) A dark viewfinder isn't so easy to work with, 2) The max aperture gives a very narrow depth of field and is much easier to focus.

When the image is shot, the aperture will close to the desired aperture (say f8). That will give more depth of field (enough to get the whole coin's relief in focus) and a significantly sharper image than f/2.8

Affordable lenses: Can adapt Nikon lenses to Canon without too much trouble.

Sigma 105/2.8 (can get for Canon)
Older used Nikon 105's (manual focus typically)
nikon 55/2.8 micro (very sharp lens)
Tamron 90 macro (can get for Canon)
Older Canon 100 macros (need an adapter to work on AF bodies)
Older manual focus nikon 200/4 micros

The longer focal length lenses will give more working distance and allow better lighting. 60 is OK but 100 is better.

DieClash

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>You won't notice any difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 except for minimally darker viewfinder with the f3.5. Not a big deal. You won't want to shoot coin images at f/2.8 or f3.5 anyway.

The 180 has 6 cm more minimum focus distance (as measured from the focal plane - i.e. the detector) but the 180 is a larger and longer lens and I think that the working distances are comparable. >>



PM sent!

Why not? I was just about to pull the trigger on a Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.5 Macro USM lens @ $400+. If f/2.8 or f/3.5 are not for coin images then what would you recommend?

FWIW the Canon 180mm f/3.5 Macro lens lists @ $1,500+. Folks, that's serious money for a serious photog buff. My budget is in the $400 range. Not to deter from the OP's query, but how 'bout some recommendations in the affordable range as well as the serious camera hobbyist range?

Cheers!

>>



While Mark can answer the question with exponentially more expertise than I can, the simple answer is that you will generally not shoot coins with the f-stop at less than 4 due to the loss of depth of field. The "faster" lens (i.e. lower f-stop) is not necessary as you will have enough light that a higher f-stop will be optimal. As least that is how I understand it.

I was just worried about the inherent image quality between the two Sigma lenses.

Lane >>




OK. So does the f-stop of the Macro lens matter as much as the focal length in mm? And are there macro lenses higher than f/3.5? From what I've seen most Canon/Nikon lenses available for "reasonable" money are in the f/2.8-3.5 range


EDITED: Nevermind. Mark answered above before I posted my query to Lane!

LindeDad

The quality of the copy stand is probably more impotant than the slight difference in those two lens.

mgoodm3

Photographers will often shoot images at a larger aperture and use the narrow depth of field artistically, despite seom loss of sharpness (actually they often like a softer image for things like portraits). Coins aren't so artistic. You want to get everything in focus and keep the image sharp that means working in the f/6-10 range.

Bochiman

I bought a 60mm macro, not knowing the above. Within short order, I bought the Sigma 105mm for the coins.
The 60mm will be fine for flowers and some others things, and maybe the slab shots, but I didn't like it for the coins themselves.

renomedphys

Sweet spot for coins is f/7-9, like Mark said, which is well within the "sharp" zone for almost any lens. If the 180 can do 1:1 magnification, and it's not too big or expensive, than try that. The working distance for my 150mm Sigma is decent, but more is always good.

I will say that the 150 is probably the lens that works best for me under the broadest conditions. It's fast, bright, works great for nature and great for closeups. Maybe my favorite lens.

Currently I own:

Tokina 12-24mm f/4
Nikon 20mm f/2.8
Nikon 35mm f/2
Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Nikon 85mm f/1.4
Sigma 150mm f/2.8

astrorat

<< <i>I bought a 60mm macro, not knowing the above. Within short order, I bought the Sigma 105mm for the coins.
The 60mm will be fine for flowers and some others things, and maybe the slab shots, but I didn't like it for the coins themselves. >>



Actually my Nikkor 60mm micro works quite well for raw coins, but my Nikkor 105mm micro is better.

Lane

LeeG

I've been trying for over 30 day's to get a Sigma 180mm for my Nikon D60. I had a Tamron 90mm lens that I sold to a forum member. I bought a Sigma 180mm lens off of eBay that the seller stated was new, it wasn't. I returned it and got my money back. I bought one new and seller shipped via UPS. I paid for expedited shipping, 2nd Day Air. UPS couldn't find my address so it is now going back to the seller. No phone call, nothing, just ship back to seller. Two of three delivereies from UPS have been unacceptable. Called UPS and Seller. Will come back to me via 2nd Day Air and I hope to get a refund on my shipping charges. Very frustrating.