Nikon AF-S 85mm f/3.5VR Micro

Concept: 1 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: The prime equivalent of an 18-200 f/dark.

Counter Opinion: There are certain things that I don't understand, and the Nikon 85mm f/3.5VR Micro lens is one of them. The 85/3.5VR feels like Nikon's attempt to make a "do everything" prime lens. It's macro, it's portrait, it's stabilized – it ticks all the boxes, and ends up as a me-too entry on some already-crowded shelves.

Nikon currently makes six 85mm lenses, and I have two of them. There's the 85/2.8PC-E Micro, which is why I own Nikon in the first place, and the little 85/1.8D, which usually lives on my F5. Then there's the 85/1.4D, which remains one of their top portrait lenses, the incredibly sharp 85/1.4G, and the elusive 85/1.8G, which is nearly as good as the 1.4G but with slower autofocus.

The 85/3.5 is an AF-S and DX lens, so it's targeted at entry-level to mid-market cameras. Selling for under $500 at reputable stores in America and Canada, and $550 at Henry's, its price is in the same ballpark as the 85/1.8G and 85/1.8D. No, none of those match the 85/3.5VR's macro ability, but there's also Nikon's 60/2.8G, Sigma's 70/2.8, and the Tamron 90/2.8 that handle that task at a similar cost and size. The short telephoto range is a tough place to be.

I have used the Sigma 70/2.8 and Tamron 90/2.8 macros, but tried the 85/3.5 directly against the Nikon 60/2.8G because that's the one that I own. The 85mm is only slightly larger than the 60mm, and does have a substantially longer working distance at high magnifications, but also has more distortion on the DX frame than my 60 does on FX. The sharpness results were functionally identical across most of the focusing range, but at the maximum 1:1 magnification the 85/3.5 becomes significantly worse. By backing off just a little to 1:1.2 magnification the 85/3.5 improves substantially, and by 1:1.4 it's respectable once again.

Some of my test photos are here: 60@1:1 #1 and #2, 85@1:1 #1 and #2, 85@1:1.2 #1 and #2; all were shot at f/8 with the D800 set to DX mode. Focusing is with Live View on the number "6". Manually focused samples, other targets, and the centre of the lens all show the same quality drop at 1:1 versus 1:1.2.

Looking at Nikon's lens lineup, the greatest virtue of the 85/3.5 is that it's cheaper, smaller, and shorter than the 105VR. But it's not remarkable when compared to other short macros, gives up two stops of light over a similarly-priced fast 85 in exchange for that macro ability, and then fails badly at maximum magnification. It wouldn't be my first choice for either portrait or macro photography, and if I really needed to own one lens that would be used for both then I'd buy something else. Sure, it's a good lens, but sometimes that's not enough.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 13 august 2012

Manfrotto 454 Micro Positioning Plate

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's a great budget choice for a niche product.


The Long Version: Many macro photographers think that their images lack depth - and it's not because they're more honest than average. Getting enough depth of field, and getting the right focus placement, can be a real struggle. So for everyone who uses a tripod to improve their close-up photography, I'll recommend a fantastic accessory that's generically called a 'focusing rail.' Far cheaper than the (reportedly excellent) products from Kirk and RRS, the Manfrotto 454 Micro Positioning Plate is affordable enough to be used by non-specialists and still good enough to do the job.


Getting enough depth of field is a huge challenge in macro photography. Focus stacking - combining images with different areas in focus - is an excellent solution, but simply changing the focus on a macro lens also changes the magnification and composition. Walking the focus with a stationary camera may work, but using the 454 positioning plate gives a better solution. Simply focus to the desired magnification, position the camera for the best framing, and then move the camera front-to-back with the 454 while taking photo 'slices' through the subject. Combine them in software in post and the results can be quite striking.


Naturally, even single images will benefit from your being able to place the plane of focus in exactly the right spot by simply shifting the camera with absolute precision. No more nudging the tripod legs and hoping for the best.

The assembly in these photos is a DIY project. Two 454 plates - sold separately - are attached perpendicularly, with a 323 quick-release on top and an attachment plate for my 410 geared head on the bottom. The 323 QR was a bit of a problem, since its bottom isn't flush, but a couple of cut-down stir sticks solved that problem. It's my way of putting the pro back into improvised. Without the added quick release the camera would need to be screwed directly to the 454 plate; that's just barbaric.


Making the system compatible with the 200/rc2 plates also means that a Manfrotto 341 L-bracket can be used on the camera. The 454 plates weigh about a pound each, so this whole assembly is over a kilogram and isn't something to flop sideways on a ballhead. But by placing mine on a 410 geared head, it gives me precise control over five axes of movement. Weighing six pounds without a camera, that's a substantial addition to the top of a tripod; but for focus-stacking and/or precise compositions, it's totally worth it.

Front-to-back movement is controlled by a the dual thumbscrews (black) that move the assembly less than a millimeter with a comfortable 5/8ths twist. For quick adjustment, the black lever disengages the mechanism and allows the plate to slide. The brass thumbscrew beside it does the reverse, and locks the plate into place. There's enough play in the sliding plate that the framing will change slightly, but if it's tightened down enough to get rid of that movement, then all movement stops. If I'm shooting a stack of images then I'll just factor a little wiggle room into my composition - literally - and forget about it. Life's a barter system.


In an entertaining first for Thewsreviews, I completely forgot that I'd actually reviewed the 454 plates six months ago. (Naturally, there's a lot of repetition, but the earlier article is here.) While I was more enthusiastic back then, my basic conclusion is unchanged: They're not perfect, but the 454 plates are a solid and reliable way to get better close-up photos. I liked my first one enough to add a second, and I wouldn't want to do my product photography without them.

Sigma 180mm f/3.5 Macro in Nikon Mount

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: If at first you don't succeed...

The Long Version: Sigma makes five macro lenses, and they all have the "EX" rating marking them as the best they make. In Canada, that means a 10-year warranty and a 48-hour service commitment - if they have parts in stock. I ran into that qualifier with their 150mm Macro lens in 4/3 mount, which I started reviewing over a year ago. (Parts one and two). But despite my mixed experience with the 150 macro, I was still impressed enough with its optics to buy its big brother for my Nikon D700.

Compared to the 150mm 2.8 Macro, the 180/3.5 is longer and heavier, but has fewer lens elements. The 180 does have a slightly more impressive MTF chart, and a working distance that's 8cm/3" longer, but aside from that there really doesn't seem to be much difference between them. While I own both lenses, they're in different mounts and feeding very different sensors, so there's no point in a head-to-head comparison. That isn't going to stop me from wondering why Sigma has both lenses in its lineup, but until I get a chance to play stump-the-sales-rep, I don't think I'm going to have an answer for that question.

For what it's worth, and for the three people to whom this will matter, the 180 macro has an aperture ring while the 150 does not. Otherwise I'd say that you should pick the lens you need based on their size and working distance, since any difference in sharpness or brightness is going to be inconsequential in actual use. (amended three months later: now that I'm starting to understand just what a big deal micro-4/3 cameras are, the aperture ring may be the 180's unique selling point. Putting one of these lenses on a G1 or GH1, with their dense sensors and articulating screens - via an F-to-m4/3 adapter - would make an especially awesome macro setup. I'd suggest that Nikon users should look at the 180 instead of the 150mm simply for this potential, even if they don't yet think that a m4/3 camera is in their future.)

Complaints about poor sharpness are rarely heard about any macro lens, and the Sigma 180 is at the top of this particular category. I'm not going to dwell on it too heavily; I've used the lens on a solid tripod and have absolutely no complaints. The photo above is a reduced section - not 100%, but larger than I'd use - of the area that I magnified for manual focus, and was shot at f/16 with my D700. I find it completely acceptable. Naturally, depth of field is extremely shallow, which makes a single photo just a starting place for jewellery photography. After processing many photos shot at subtly different distances, the finished result looks something like this:

The image above is very nearly the entire frame, so it shows both the amount of magnification that the D700 gets at 1:1, and gives some sense of the size of the previous sample. If you're planning a macro kit from the ground up, don't assume that a bigger sensor is a better idea. A 1:1 ratio is reality:sensor, so a bigger sensor means capturing a bigger part of the world. A reduced-frame camera's smaller sensor with denser pixels makes for a powerful combination.

But just because a lens can focus on small things doesn't mean that it shouldn't get to photograph large things. At 180mm and f/3.5, the Sigma is a useful medium-to-long telephoto. Canon and Nikon both make 180mm and 200mm prime lenses, and they alternate between f/2.8 non-macro and slightly slower macro lenses. So there is a strong precedent for macro lenses and prime lenses in this focal range, and of course the plentiful 70-200mm lenses for both major manufacturers also speak to the focal length's suitability for all kinds of photography. Telephotos are easy to shoot with, flatter most subjects, and can give the subject/background separation that Serious Photographers want to prove that they weren't shooting with a Coolpix. While the Sigma 180mm Macro isn't a small lens, I do find it very useful for general photography.

Looking at my images taken with the 180/3.5, there's a fun little game that I play called "guess the aperture". I've gotten good enough that I can usually spot the difference in vignetting between f/4 and f/5.6, which are my two favourite apertures for hand-holding this lens. A crop-sensor camera will avoid most of this - which is why they were invented - but since I'm using a camera that uses the entire image circle, I'll be building some Lightroom presets to take care of the problem. For what it's worth, the image above is shot at f/4.0, and the photo below was taken at f/5.6.

The 150mm and 180mm macro lenses both use the same tripod collar. It was one of the highlights of my experience with the shorter lens, and it's just as good on the 180. Instead of being a solid collar that slips over the back of the lens, it's split with a hinge and secured by a cam-lock. This lets it unclip from the lens without taking it off of the camera, which is great for on-again, off-again monopod sessions. A lens this long without image stabilization really does benefit from the extra support, but it's also bright enough to get away with shooting hand-held when perfection is overkill. It's nice to have the choice.

People who have read my reviews of the Sigma 150mm in 4/3 (aka "Olympus") mount might be surprised that I haven't mentioned the autofocus on the Nikon-fit 180/3.5. That's because it's simply not an issue with this lens - it's certainly not the fastest, but it is very quiet and reliable. The photo above shows a bit of camera-shake blur and a bit more Jack Russel blur, but is the only time I was able to catch the dog in motion (as if there's another state for a JRT) with anything approaching presentable sharpness. This isn't an action-photography lens, but it would be fine for normal movement, which is far more than I can say for the Olympus-mount version that inspired me to buy this one.

The Sigma 180mm f/3.5 macro lens leaves me with no complaints, except for its vignetting, which is apparently something that's not unusual for full-frame sensors and the lenses that are designed for them. I'd prefer not to see it, but it can be fixed fairly easily. But I keep coming back to my earlier question about why Sigma has both a 180mm and a 150mm macro lens in its lineup. The longer working distance of the 180mm is nice, but for my product photography it isn't as important as it would be for nature and critters. Essentially, I bought the 180 size only because I already had the 150 in 4/3 mount, and even I can't bring myself to that level of techno-redundancy.

From what I know about the 150, and after using the 180, I'm left without any strong reason to recommend one over the other, but can endorse them both. Just try them out and see which one you like best.

Olympus 50mm f/2.0 Macro

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: There's no reason for a 4/3 shooter to not own one.

The Long Version: 50mm lenses are something of a cult classic, and it's a really big cult. There's a mystique about the Leica-equipped starving artist photographer - starving because they spent $5000 for a light-tight box - stalking the streets with a fast fifty lens, looking for decisive moments and refusing to crop their photos even though their viewfinders are woefully inaccurate. In this era of cheap slow zooms, the 'nifty fifty' lenses can be an affordable way to get better image quality without sticker shock. (True story: when I tell people the price difference between the Nikon 55-200 and 55-200/VR, I often get a stunned look and a feeble "...oh, I'm not a pro" response.) There's also an argument, typically oversimplified and overemphasized, that a 50mm lens gives 'normal' perspective and most accurately reproduces how we see the world.

Fortunately, the Olympus 50mm is completely above all that. In the Olympus world its focal length makes it a short telephoto, and it lands perfectly in the most poplar macro and portrait focal lengths for legacy film cameras. It's also not cheap, although its price is aligning nicely with the new generation of 50mm lenses, and it's far less expensive than macro lenses with similar fields of view for other formats.

The 50/2 is one of the smaller Olympus lenses, making it easy to carry in any bag and easy to use on any camera. The build quality is a very solid plastic with a metal inner barrel. When shooting at close distances it extends enough to make some ladies faint, but at anything farther than a few feet it's perfectly suitable for use in mixed company. It's fully sealed against dust and rain, and the barrel-shaped hood is deep enough to keep water off the glass. This makes it my second choice for shooting in bad conditions, and since the 35-100 is my first choice, there's no shame in that.

The 50/2 macro comes in second place a lot. I've been told that it's the second-sharpest lens from Olympus, with the 150/2 taking first place. It's usually grouped in with the 35-100/2 and the 150/2 lenses as the best choice for portraits. That may not sound like a great endorsement, but those other lenses cost five times more than the little 50 Macro - each. I actually bought the 50 Macro specifically for low-light portraits, and have used it as a general-purpose lens far more than for macro photography.

In addition to being much more affordable, the 50/2 is petite compared to the Top Pro monsters. It's a much easier lens to handle and not nearly as intimidating, which will often make it the best choice for portrait and candid photography. Its biggest limitation here is the absence of a focus limiting switch, so occasionally it will want to check to see if there are any interesting dust motes nearby. The better autofocus systems in the E-3 and newer cameras cuts down on this, but it's still not a great lens for fast action. 

Shallow depth of field isn't the strength of the four-thirds format, but the 50/2 is one of the better lenses for it. I've never hesitated to use it wide open at any focusing distance. SLRGear and DPreview have both done their own version of stringent testing on the optics, so I won't go into further detail here than to agree that this lens is nearly perfect.

The Olympus 50mm really needs to be considered alongside the 35mm Macro, since the difference between them doesn't seem that great. The 35mm was the second lens I bought, and it served me well for a long time. Like the 50/2, it's an exceptional lens: small and sharp, and less expensive than its bigger brother. But lenses cost more because they really are better. Once I had the 50/2, its faster aperture, weather sealing, and (relatively) better autofocus, combined with a focal length that I preferred, meant that the 35/3.5 only got used when I really needed 1:1 reproduction. The Sigma 150/2.8 macro (reviewed) also does 1:1 reproduction (the 50/2 is half-sized, 1:2) but with a much better working distance, so the 35mm Macro found itself a new home where it continues to provide exceptional value for the price. Compared to the Sigma 150/2.8, the Oly 50/2 isn't as good as a dedicated macro lens, but it spanks the Sigma for everything else.

The 50mm Macro lens isn't the best for infrared photography. At narrower apertures it shows a distinct 'hot spot' in the middle of the frame. It's evident at f/8 and above, and I can just make it out at f/5.6, but I don't see it at f/4 or below. Sometimes it isn't an issue in real-world photography - the image above was shot at f/8 - but typically it is. IR requires long exposures, long exposures need tripods, and tripods encourage stopping down. This is particularly unfortunate because the 52mm filter thread makes an IR filter, like the Hoya R72 that I use, much more affordable. The 35mm gives better results, but the cheap 14-42 is (was) my favourite for IR on an Olympus SLR.

Miss Piggy provides me with my favourite photographic advice: "Never eat more than you can lift." The 50/2 is so easy to carry, and so unassuming to shoot with, that it would be worth the price even if it wasn't such an excellent and versatile performer. In many ways it's a very boring lens to use (and review), simply because it does everything so well and consistently that it becomes unremarkable. It is transparent in ways that go far beyond its remarkable clarity; if it wasn't for the occasional hunting and reassuring buzz of the focusing motor, you'd forget it was on the camera at all.

If the children are fed, the rent's paid, and you have an Olympus or Panasonic dSLR, you should own the 50mm f/2.0 Macro. It really is that simple.

Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro & Olympus E-3

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Whose throat is it, anyway?

The Long Version: I've now been using the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 DG EX Macro for four months - out of the six that I've owned it. My initial review dealt with the unpleasantness of learning that no shipping Sigma 150mm Macro lens will autofocus on an Olympus E-3 without a trip to the Sigma service center of your choice, so I won't dwell on that any more here except to say that you should make certain that the warranty covers your location, because you are going to need it. This review is just looking at the performance of the post-update lens.

Imagine an autofocus system is trying to catch a bus. Some lenses can sprint so quickly that they're never late for work, like the Olympus 12-60mm. Some get up a brisk run, holding their pockets so that nothing flies out. This would be the 11-22 or the 50-200. Some walk with dignity, thinking that if the bus leaves then it wasn't worth catching. The Oly 50mm f/2 macro comes to mind. The Sigma 150 Macro is the lens that stumbles and breaks its ankle.

To be fair, the Sigma is a macro lens, with an extremely long focus range that needs to be adjusted with great precision. It's not designed for speed, a goal that it achieves admirably. When it only needs to make minor adjustments, everything is fine and it works just like a normal lens. It does have focus-limiter switches, so it's possible to reduce the amount of hunting when it misses. These also serve another purpose: they can force the lens to shift its focus to the desired range. When the lens is at infinity when I want to take close-ups, or vice-versa, the boke(h) is so smooth that there's no contrast for the AF system to pick up, and the lens won't move at all. So cycling the power on the camera or flipping the focusing range is about the only way out. Sigma doesn't advise using the AF+MF mode on a 4/3 body, or adjusting the manual focus on the lens unless the body and lens are both in MF mode.

But the problem is that it's not all bad. When this lens is snicking into focus properly it really does some beautiful work. Optically there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and there's a reason why a 300mm-e lens is a popular focal length. It's fantastic for portraits and stand-off photography of all kinds, and as a macro lens it gives plenty of working distance. If you're working with insects, models who will be patient, or anyone else who won't be discouraged by your frequent bouts of self-referential swearing, this is a fantastic lens. But it's worth noting here that I've tried the Sigma 150 Macro in other mounts - on a Canon 5D, 50D, Nikon D80, and D700 - and while the focus travel speed is the same, the lens gets into focus in fewer steps. With the EF and F mounts, it's 'almost - done', with Olympus it's 'almost, nearly, a little more, okay, that's it.' I'd hate to anthropomorphize, but the Sigma-Olympus combination just seems to need more guesses to get to the right answer.

Of course macro photography is often done with manual focus, in which the Sigma excels. It's capable of a 'life size' reproduction, which translates to really, really big. Working distance at full magnification is about 8" from the front element, or 5.5-ish from the front of the hood. That's enough room to comfortably fit the Olympus 50/2 macro - with its hood extended -between the Sigma's hood and the subject. Not too shabby. Using the E-3's flippy screen and magnified live view makes manual focus a wonderful way to work. Add the Sigma's solid tripod mount and this becomes an exceptional combination for photographing really small things.

Sigma's tripod mount is awesome. It was one of the highlights of my first look at this lens, and it deserves a special mention again here. The collar is split with a hinge, and tripod lock knob is sprung and clips over a peg on the other half of the mount. The lock knob has a cam design that locks securely with half a rotation, which is much more elegant than the thumbscrews that other manufacturers use. The collar can be opened and removed quickly and without needing to disassemble the camera. There's a best-of-both-worlds aspect to this, because the Sigma 150 is quite small for its (effective) focal length and is comfortable to hold without the tripod mount, but it's long enough that using proper support makes composition much easier. When I'm hand-holding the camera I'll lock the collar around the strap on one of my Domkes, which is a quick and easy way to stow my monopod. The collar is even faster than a quick-release plate, so there's no reason not to use the lens in the best way for each particular moment. The Sigma 150 Macro goes from party to business faster than a speeding mullet.

I bought the Sigma because I wanted the Olympus 150mm f/2.0. I love the working distance for macros, and have a tendency for tight telephoto shots in my personal work, so it's a good fit for me. The problem is that I still want to buy the 150/2.0 - the Sigma has proven for me how suitable this focal length is without really giving me what I want from a lens. But I like the Sigma as well, and I still need its macro performance. So if I win the lottery, maybe I'll be able to have a head-to-head comparison, and can actually see myself keeping both of them.

One thing that I've found with the Sigma that cuts down on its utility is that every photo that I've taken at infinity with the 1.4 teleconverter has been soft - this isn't something that I've tested rigorously, as the results were bad enough from my one afternoon out that I haven't tried it again. (Despite ample evidence to the contrary, I don't actually make an effort to take bad photographs.) Shorter focal distances seem unaffected, but don't buy this lens thinking that it can be painlessly turned into a 210/4.0. I've also had occasions where the lens/camera combination won't respond to anything, and I need to switch the camera off and on again. And one afternoon my E-3 lost connection and displayed F-- twice. There's no pattern that I've been able to find, but these are just little things that I've never noticed with my menagerie of Olympus glass.

I've had a hard time coming to terms with the Sigarette. Using it reminds me of a computer industry expression about the value of having "one throat to choke". This is supposed to illustrate the value of having only one place to put the blame when something goes wrong; ironically it's a perfect reason to buy Apple computers, but it's almost invariably used by PC-Windows integrators. I suppose they have more things go wrong, but I digress.

What we have here is a failure to communicate, or at least a failure to optimize. And because there's two companies involved, it's impossible to say who's at fault. (Sigma.) The 150 Macro focuses more quickly on bodies from Canon and Nikon, so is Olympus autofocus inherently bad, or has Sigma failed to give the same care and attention to the four thirds mount? Really, it can be argued either way. (Sigma.) But the end result is that this lens is as good as it will ever get; Olympus isn't likely to rework their AF for Sigma, even though they are both nominally members of the 4/3 format, and Sigma isn't likely to start caring about the performance nuances of a lens that doesn't even work right out of the box.

Ultimately this is a very different animal from the Olympus 50mm macro, and there's a place for it in the four thirds lens lineup. When the camera and lens get along well, it produces some wonderful photos at all distances. It's sharp, distortion free, has great colour, and gives beautiful boke(h) in front and behind the plane of focus. But it's not a poor man's 150mm f/2.0, no matter what SLR Gear says. They've probably never actually tried the Sigma 150 on a 4/3 body, and are just going from the results that they've seen on other brands. It just doesn't work that way. In fact, I'll place a wager that even after reading all this, when you try the lens in person you'll still be surprised at just how balky the autofocus can be.

But don't say I didn't warn you, and enjoy.

Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro in Four Thirds (Olympus) Mount - The First (and Second) Month

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: Time heals all wounds. I hope.

Updated 25 September 2008: My lens has come back from service, and Sigma has confirmed that there is an incompatibility between this lens and the Olympus E-3. Depending on the individual lens, it may require a firmware upgrade, performed at the service centre, or it may require a new main board. In my case, that took almost two months. Apparently the boards for the 4/3 mount are lovingly handcrafted out of pure mithril.

Updated 7 February 2009: A longer-term review of this lens can be found in part two.



The Sigma APO MACRO 150mm F2.8 EX DG HSM is clearly a lens to be taken seriously, and I'm not going to make any claims at having a full or representative experience of its quality or performance. But I did find some significant compatibility issues when this lens is used with the Olympus E-3, so if you're planning on buying this lens in 4/3 mount, read on.

There are several rigorous and reputable sites that review lenses, so if you're reading this with a serious intent to buy, I'll assume that you're already familiar with its reviews on slrgear.com and photozone.de for both Canon and Nikon mounts. They're both useful sites, and lots of people write about the ones that they own. But Sigma lenses in 4/3 mount are rare, and lenses don't always work the same way from one system to another.

For Lease was shot with my trusty and reliable Olympus E-1, which was the subject of my very first review, and the camera and lens worked very well together. The files are nicely detailed and have good tonal range, but are a bit softer than I would like to see. Physically the lens itself is very nicely built, and the "EX" finish that marks Sigma's premium lenses isn't as conspicuous as I had feared.

Here's how the lens looks on an Olympus E-1:

One of the biggest surprises with the Sigma is just how slow the focusing is. To be friendly, I'll say that it's on the relaxed side of leisurely. Now, the E-1's no speed demon when it comes to any auto-focusing, but this combination deserves special mention. It's even slower than the E-1 with the 50mm f/2 macro, which was my previous benchmark for what "slow" means. This is NOT a lens that will replace the Olympus 150mm f/2.0 for sports, photojournalism, or crawling babies. If you're thinking that the only tradeoff with this lens is that it's just a stop slower than the $2400 Oly lens - but with the bonus Macro ability - well, TANSTAAFL. But I've also tried the Sigma 150mm in EF mount on a Canon 5D, and my subjective impression is that the 5D spanks the Olympus for focusing speed. Even having used the lens on the faster-focusing E-510, I'd give Canon the advantage here. I'm looking forward to being able to try them side-by-side, along with the lens on a Nikon, and will include that in a later review.

In the meantime, here's how the Sigma 150 looks on an Olympus E-510:

A nice design feature of the Sigma 150 is its removable tripod mount. This has a simple cam-locked release that can be undone with a simple twist, allowing the collar to swing open and come off of the lens without having to dismount the camera. Very handy. It doesn't add any more bulk to the collar, and looks much nicer than the shiny silver dots that are left behind on the Olympus lenses when they're being used al fresco. The hood is well built and doesn't act like it's planning on falling off. It also comes with a souvenir lens case which is nicely built and well padded, but I'm still not quite sure how I'm supposed to use it.

Here's how the lens looks on an Olympus E-3:

You may have noticed that the lens looks a little different this time around, and that's because it acts differently. On my E-3, this one particular lens had a problem with intermittent-but-consistent front-focusing. The camera body works fine with my eleven Olympus lenses, so after one frustrating week of considering my options and testing every possible combination of factors, the lens went in for service. It's been there three weeks so far, and there's no estimate of when it will be "fixed" - where fixed means "works the way it was supposed to from the very beginning". Right now it's waiting for parts, which isn't part of Sigma's commitment to 48 hour turn-around for its professional-grade EX series lenses.

Now it's quite possible to say that this is an isolated case. But my 150 Macro worked fine - but perhaps a little soft - on my other two bodies. That suggests to me that there's something new a different about the E-3's focusing system, and that there's a fundamental disconnect between the top-grade Olympus camera and the top-grade Sigma macro lens in four-thirds mount. So in the name of research I've sought out other's experience on a large and popular forum for Olympus-using photographers. The tally was six different E-3's have been tried on a total of seven different Sigma 150mm Macro lenses, and every single one has had front-focusing issues. Three of those same lenses were also used on other E-System cameras, and each functioned properly. Another 150mm Macro lives happily on an E-510 without any problems at all. I think the conclusion pretty much draws itself on this issue.

My first month with my Sigma APO MACRO 150mm F2.8 EX DG HSM has been frustrating, disappointing, time-consuming, and very educational. My conclusion so far is that I won't be buying any more Sigma lenses because the danger of them not being inherently compatible with future Olympus bodies, while slim, is very real. I haven't quite gotten to the point of wishing that I hadn't bought it - but then my credit card bill only just arrived - because the results that I've seen from "fixed" copies of this lens have been spectacular. I'm eagerly awaiting its return from the service bay, because it really is an excellent macro lens that will help me in my business, and it suits my style of general photography perfectly. But I certainly can't recommend that anyone else buy this lens unless they're willing to experience some complex and multi-layered buyer's remorse.

Sorry.

Continue on to Part 2, in whihc our hero finally has his 150mm Macro working properly on an Olympus E-3 by clicking HERE.


The incompatibility between Sigma 150 Macro lenses and the Olympus E-3 can be fixed by upgrading the firmware on certain lenses. Since this review was originally written, Panasonic and Olympus have introduced the ability to have their lenses' firmware updated on each other's bodies. Sigma is at least a nominal participant in this project, but at the time of this update (25 October 2008) has not posted anything to the joint firmware update service. You can check this link to see if the situation has improved.