Search the Community

On my seemingly-eternal search for interesting lenses for close-up work I could not help but come across the Schneider Kreuznach Macro Varon 85mm f/4.5 CAS lens, if only because Schneider promotes the Macro Varon all over the place. And that’s a lot of promotion for a lens most photographers have never heard of. Well, I heard about the Macro Varon and searched it down to its price tag of $4500 and that set me back on my heels a bit. I don’t need a new lens THAT much. Well, perhaps a Zeiss Otus or two would be alright. I did make some calls, sent out some email requests and finally found that the Macro Varon could be had for somewhere in the mid $3K range brand-new. Well, of course that just sent me to Ebay looking for used copies. However, while it has happened, the Macro Varon does not show up used on Ebay very often, in fact hardly ever. Well, that limited my searching. I did find out that one sold on Ebay some time ago. Again, I spoke with Schneider reps about the Makro Varon on the phone and finally just let it go. It’s not that I don’t have other lenses that I might buy. LOL. And for those of you foolish so think I’m rich, guess again. I sell old equipment to buy new equipment as I go along. I just do it methodically. To make a long story short, recently a good friend sent me a message that there was a Makro Varon actually on Ebay for $1500. Well, that turned the corner for me and I bought it in about 15 seconds from receiving the message. It came from China, was used, but looked in decent condition. When the lens finally showed up at my door it was obviously brand new or in mint condition. However, it came in a strange industrial lens-mount which held the lens captive with three very tiny screws. I exhausted my collection of tiny screwdrivers, flat, Phillips, and torx (star). Then I called the local optician and gear-heads and no one had a tool that small. Well, that was disappointing, since I had no way to mount the lens without removing this big clucky adapter that gripped it first. Then I went salvaging through dozens of boxes of camera-related stuff and finally found a set of tiny torx drivers, but none of them was small enough to work. But, there was one (tiny) hole where a missing torx wrench should be. Where was it? And sure enough, in the bottom of my box of Cambo Actus parts was the tiny torx screwdriver and to my surprise, it worked! I had the lens mounted in a few minutes and was good to go. Now, I wanted to find out if this lens is best mounted directly to the camera and the camera placed on a focus rail, or should the lens be mounted directly on the camera with a small helicoid to focus with. The lens itself has no way to focus. It has six aperture blades (I wish there were more) and It has f/stops from f.4.5 through and including f/8. It does have something special, however. The Macro Varon has an additional ring on the barrel that allows me to adjust the floating lens parts in the lens to fit a particular magnification ratio 0.5x to 2.0x. This compensates and suppresses aberration depending on the magnification ratio. The only other lens that I have that has such a ring is the first edition of the Nikon Printing Nikkor 150mm APO f/2.8. These rings actually work. Another rather unique feature of the Macro Varon is that on each individual lens, during final adjustment, a tiny drop of red paint is placed on the rim of the barrel that allows (when the M42 adapter is screwed on tight) us to orient the particular lens to the camera sensor orthogonally, at right-angles. This is red dot calculated and optimized for each individual lens. Anyway, I soon figured out that (at least for now) I get the most play out of mounting the lens on the Cambo Actus Mini View Camera. Next, I had to decide what kind of hood would be best, since my first shots (made without a hood) lacked a bit of contrast. I tried both flared and narrow-tube hoods and finally fashioned one from the Nikon K-Ring set, one K5 plus two K3s all screwed together. They made a nice tubular hood that seems fine so far. Mounted on the Cambo Actus Mini, I soon found out that rather than the large (special order) cambo bellows I normally use that prevented me from getting as much field of view as I wanted with this lens, so I substituted a short bellows, which is fine because I do not need as much room with the Macro Varon anyway. That helped a bunch. I could also look into using a tiny extension/helicoid mounted directly on the camera, but I doubt that I would gain much, and moving the rear-standard on a view camera is better for stacking than using a helicoid. Anyway, I am up and running. Here is a quick photo of my setup, the Nikon D850 on the Cambo Actus Mini. On that is the Schneider Macro Varon 85mm f/4.5 lens adapted to Nikon mount, with a hood made of several K-rings. So far, so good. And I include a couple of early shots taken with the Makro Varon to give you an idea of what this lens can produce. This setup is not hiking-material, but certainly can go outside to the fields and meadows, at least if there is easy access so that the gear does not have to be carried far. The lens itself would be easy to carry for hikes, but would have to include some form of helicoid to focus or be happy with a DOF at F/8 and fixed focus. Anyway, I’m checking out the Schneider Macro Varon 85mm and would be interested in any other user’s experience. A fine review of the Scheider Macro Varon is this one by Robert O’Toole: https://www.closeuphotography.com/macro-varon/schneider-macro-varon-lens

I have been stacking focus for many years now, so I’m no stranger to this technique. And the track of my learning curve (more like a spiral) has been fueled by my using better and better corrected lenses (APO) to enhance the stacking. In other words, the more finely corrected the lenses, the more careful I have to be in stacking, and on around. It’s like a Catch-22. I get lots of emails and messages about my photos. And not infrequently (at least from photographers) is the question as to whether I have tried one of the automated focus rails. In the past, I have taken a certain amount of pride in pointing out to these folks that I can stack quite well manually, thank you very much. I had no intention of varying my technique. Yet, as I pointed out above, the circular spiral of finer lenses and precise stacking led to more and better apochromatic lenses, like the Zeiss Otus series, the APO-El Nikkor 105, the Leica Elmarit-R APO 100mm macro, and so on. I pretty-much took these fine lenses in stride, hopefully learning to use them more and more skillfully. Then comes the Schneider Macro Varon 85mm industrial lens. I had kind of heard about this lens on and off for some time, but never had seen one come up used on Ebay and even trying to get availability and a firm price from the manufacturer and distributors was difficult. It was almost as if they did not want to sell to me because I was not a company that required industrial lens for line-scanning. I wrote them. I called them on the phone. A more detailed story about the Macro Varon would require a separate article. Suffice it to say that a good friend of mine, another photographer, sent me a FB message telling me that a Macro Varon just came up of Ebay and at an attractive price at that. It took all of perhaps one minute and I had bought it. It was not an impulse buy, because I had decided to get one quite a while ago, just not pay the retail price of about $4500. Ouch! The Makro Varon is a very highly corrected lens, certainly worthy of the name APO. However, perhaps most remarkable was that this was a lens built for a wide range of magnifications, which is unusual for industrial lenses, which usually have a very limited magnification range at which they are at optimum sharpness. The Macro Varon even has a separate ring to compensate for whichever reproduction-ratio is used, actually moving the inner lens elements around to accommodate that reproduction range. And, interestingly enough, its specs showed me that it could easily outperform the sensor of my fairly new Nikon D850. “Hmmmm, I mused. I’d like to see that.” And see it I did and pretty quickly too. But such a revelation soon led me to rethinking my bias against automated focus rails. It was not that I could not stack well, but I continue to get older and I am old enough as it is, and the little bumps, jars, and vibrations caused by me began to be more visible; they got in the way. Anyway, back to this blog. So, there I was, reading about the StackShot, when before I knew it my finger was hitting the return-key to order a copy. And to my surprise, the company (Cognisys) was right here in Michigan, only just up the road from where I live, in Traverse City. So, it was only a day or so before the automated-rail turned up at my door. However, learning to use StackShot was a bit of puzzle. It actually is very simple, but the manual is SO complete that finding the simple in it is hard. At least that’s how it struck me. I just wanted to get going right away and stack something, but although eventually that was easy, at first it was not so. And also, this device is meant for many kinds (or ways) of stacking. It took me a while to figure out what the name for what I wanted to do was. I finally did (Automatic Distance) and, as mentioned, it could not be simpler. Well, it could be explained more simply. LOL. As a software developer myself since the early 1970s, I recognized the kind of manual that indeed was precise, but is no beginner’s guide. I told them so. The problem was, IMO, how do I find what increment or step makes sense for the kind of close-up focus-stacking that I do. I don’t need the kind of detail one needs for stacking a bee’s knees, but I do need enough overlap of images to make the rendering of the stack smooth with no banding. Of course, I called the support line at Cognisys and spoke with a very nice person, only too willing to help. The problem was that at each question, each point where I was stuck, he pointed out that this or that particular choice was variable, very variable. So after fifteen minutes or so, I was right back where I started from, having to figure it out for myself. What’s new? Story of my life! LOL. And it took a while for me to run many stacks at different step-sizes to find a step-size that gave me what I was looking for and not one that took all day by over-stacking what probably couldn’t be seen. I wasn’t stacking a microscope image, but just a flower or two. I messaged Rik Littlefield, creator of Zerene Stacker, the stacking software I use, and asked him about over sampling. His response was that it won’t harm anything to make too many images, but it might add a wee bit of extra noise. After a few happy days with StackShot, here is where I am at. So far, it looks like the more detail you can get with the smaller increments with Stackshot, the better the result, within reason. StackShot likes to work in thousandths-of-an-inch or in millimeters or fractions thereof, your choice. I found myself working with MLS, thousandths of an inch, a setting of 20 Mls seems pretty good. 10 MLS is slightly better, but perhaps not worth the extra time, etc. A lot depends on keeping natural light even, which is hard with variable cloudiness. My thoughts on using the StackShot automatic-rail are positive. I have stacked for many years, always barely touching the focus barrel or whatever mechanism as required. I got pretty good at it, but also made little accidental bumps and knocks, which have never helped at all. And, as I drill down on these ultra-sharp industrial lenses that can challenge the sensor of even the Nikon D850, there is less room for user-caused error and a greater demand for regular precise increments. After many years of focus stacking, my most valuable learned skills are in setting up and composing the shot, although I have always done my best to move carefully through all the steps that focus-stacking requires. However, having tried out StackShot, I am convinced it has a lot to offer me in stability and consistency, leaving me more time to consider what shot I want to take. I am enjoying that. I have a fair amount of testing the Stackshot yet to do, but I am already getting a handle on it. By testing various step-sizes, I am already converging on what seems to work for me. I’m not doing photo-micography, but rather just simple close-up and macro photography. Of the many options that StackShot offers, the one I seem to be gravitating to is Automatic-Distance, which allows me to choose the granularity, the step-size, that works best for my work. In other words, I have one main step size that will be applied no matter what scope or distance I want to cover. Should that not be fine enough, I can easily make if finer, etc. The only caveat might be with spherical objects, where following the curve demands finer steps, IMO. So, the step sizes I have settled on should work. Physically, the StackShot is very well made, meaning it is robust, as strong or stronger than any other focus rail I have and I have ten or so. Its vertical profile for my camera is low, about as low as it could be and I have fitted it with my favorite RRS Arca quick-release clamp, the one with a larger knob. I can see no way that this is not better than what I have been doing myself by hand. And the program allows me to introduce all kinds of latency time, which I have done, so that at each movement of the auto rail, I take a second or so to let any vibrations created by the mechanism movement subside. The only problem, which has nothing to do with StackShot, is that since I use natural light, on a variably-cloudy day the lighting changes from moment to moment and affects the stack. To counter this, I would have to be standing there, slightly modifying the shutter moment-by-moment to keep the light stable. That kind of takes the auto out of automatic, but that’s the price we pay for natural light. It varies. So, my initial impression of the StackShot is not only good, but very good, almost something like “where-have-you-been-all-my-life?” good. I like it. As for taking the time I am used to spending stacking focus at the camera away from me, which I traditionally associate with meditative absorption on my part, it does not seem a problem. My hard-won skills are seeing the shot and setting up for it. With StackShot, I do the creative work and let an expert step through the mechanics while I do other stuff. Makes sense and seems fine. StackShot is easily rough enough to take into the field, provided you realize that it is heavy and if you don’t have any wind. Here in Michigan, I wait to see each day if there is no wind at first light. Rare, but it happens. A Hidden Surprise Surprise, surprise! There is almost always a surprise with new equipment. Using stackshot made one thing very clear. By standardizing the process of focus stacking (the mechanical part) all lenses were treated equally. It’s true that I always did my best to incrementally stack focus as carefully as I could. But, I cannot pretend that on any given day, I may have stacked looser or tighter, even or less even. I can only guess at the variation. But one thing is clear so far from using the StackShot and that is that the regularity of increments (the step size) reveals more clearly than I have ever seen the true or actual difference between any of these highly corrected lenses. It is clear that some of these lens differences were veiled by the more organic (sloppy) process of stacking by hand and not by auto-stacking. However, by regulating the stacking process, it creates a much more level playing field. And I found it very easy to see the differences between lenses, many of which I could never before be certain about. And so, whatever else auto-rail stacking provides (and there is a lot) a wonderful bonus in allowing me to see more clearly than ever how lenses differ, something I have always strained to see (regardless of all the graphs) for myself. By stacking in a more regulated manner removes (at least for me) a veil that has been obscuring these difference all of this time. Below are a couple of tables that might be useful. StackShot likes to work in thousandths-of-an-inch or in millimeters or fractions there of. 1 Millimeter = 39.3701 Thousandth of an Inch 1 thousandth of an inch in is equal to 25.40 μm Thousandths-inch TO MILLIMETER 10-mils = 0.254 Millimeters 15-mils = 0.381 Millimeters 20-mils = 0.508 Millimeters 25-mils = 0.635 Millimeters 30-mils = 0.762 Millimeters 35-mils = 0.889 Millimeters 39-mils = 0.9906 Millimeters 39.37 mils = 1 Millimeter MILLIMETER to Thousandths-inch .25 MM = 9.84 Mils .333 MM = 13.11 Mils .5 MM = 19.685 Mils .666 MM = 26.22 .75 MM =29.5276 Mils 1 MM = 39.37 Mils 1.25 MM = 49.2126 Mils 1.5 MM = 59.055 Mils 2 MM = 78.7 Mils 2.5 MM = 98.42 Mils 3 MM = 118.11 Mils 3.5 = 137.8 Mils 4 = 157.5 Mils 4.5 = 177.2 Mils 5 = 197 Mils Here are three example images, both done with StackShot, one with the Schneider Macro Varon f/4.5 and another with the APO-El Nikkor 105mm f/5.6. A third one is with the Nikkor “O” CRT lens. Also, a poor-quality shot (shot at night in bad lighting) of the StackShot controller (Vecro-ed to a post) and the basic StackShot setup. Not the RRS Quick-Releas Clamp with the large knob.

Over the summer I have been using the 5D-III to shoot a lot of macro. The weight of the big rig can be a tiring experience in the Texas heat. Not to mention, the size can be a detriment when approaching insects. I’ve been working on an illumination strategy for the Olympus EM-1 to better utilize the size (lack thereof) advantage the camera has over the Canon. When I started out I limited its use to tripod work and then graduated to a large diffuser box and flash clamped to the camera via ARCA plates and clamps. This setup defeated the size advantage and just added unneeded weight. Time to rethink the plan… I finally got around to buying a MetaBones EOS-to-M4/3 adapter. The native 60mm Olympus macro lens is a fine piece of glass but I wanted more working distance. Time to pair up the Sigma 150mm macro. It’s the older version, no image stabilization, so the weight is reasonable and the working distance is twice as much. This is a good and bad thing, good because I have more working room with skittish insects. Bad because diffuser/ flash need to be extended on an arm to be at an effective distance. Enter the wireless Phottix Canon Triggers and 430EX-II with diffuser. I was free to position the flash by hand anywhere I wanted. This really opens up lighting options for me. To start off with I have been using the camera on a tripod and holding the flash. These pictures are an example of the effort. I have been practicing holding the camera with one hand and the flash with the other. This technique uses the camera’s lack of weight for positioning (diffused flash illumination and camera) advantages: This is a one-handed camera shoot. It was harder than I thought it would be. A lot harder than sitting on my field stool popping off shots of flowers and such with my knee as a support. I was able to position my right shoulder against the tree and this added much needed stability. For 1:1 or there abouts shooting the 60mm macro with hood doesn't offer enough working room for me to properly position the flash camera side so I put it on the opposite side of the subject. I shot some frames and adjusted the angle so there wasn’t any stray glare entering the lens. I was surprised by the fact I had a harder time keeping the 430EX II flash steady and in position than the camera. Just about the time I got everything coordinated the ‘pede found a hole in the trunk and headed off into the abyss…

Introduction Back at the beginning of this century when I became interested in photography, one of the first specialist lenses I bought was the original Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX Macro. I got it because at the time I had been pre-conditioned into believing that anything with a 2.8 maximum aperture was going to be "da bomb" for any pictures I took with it. This one had been purchased off an auction site and it was my intention to use it for portraiture. The lens was very sharp, but it was a specialist lens that required a great deal of user knowledge in order to obtain the maximum output. For a start it was extremely slow to focus and it grew longer than Pinocchio’s nose the closer you focused it. I actually did my first paid product shoot with that lens in my bedroom when I was still tied into the Matrix (which is Dallas speak for “corporate rat race”). The shots were made with my F5 on Velvia 50 slide film and were super saturated. Boy, was I green when it came to choosing the right tools for the job back then. I had the right lens and camera, but Velvia 50 for products? Fast-forward more than a decade to today and while things have certainly changed in the imaging world, product photography is still a big part of my life and I can at least boast that I have progressed to a point where I am able to convince some people that they should pay me to take pictures of their products. The lenses I am using have progressed too and the one I am reviewing for you here is the re-incarnation of that same Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro I used to do my first ever product shoot, but this time with a little added refinement. Application Why use a macro lens? What is the point in them? Optically they are designed to let you get closer and produce magnification that is at least 1:1 with real life in your camera’s sensor, or in some cases even closer (with accessories). This one does 1:1 on it’s own and let’s you work as close as 31.2cm from your subject. I use macro lenses for my product photography because of this ability to work closer. Sometimes it’s a blessing and other times it’s a curse, because filling a frame with a small object, while possible on shorter focal length macro lenses, can change the perspective of the object you’re trying to shoot. I shoot a lot of books for one of my clients and I have found that with a 60mm macro lens I tend to use only half the frame because if I get any closer the book begins to look like a looming giant. This is why I began looking for a lens that would allow me to work a little bit further away, but still retain some sense of normalcy in perspective, all the while filling the FX frame with the product I am shooting. I don’t shoot any flowers or insects, nor have I ever done any focus stacking, so please bear this in mind when reading this review. I’m reviewing the lens based on my typical applications, which are product shots, some close ups of stuff, and very occasionally a portrait or two. The new Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX HSM has evolved from my first Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro lens dramatically. It’s a completely new lens. We now have a lens that has super quick focusing, thanks to the built-in Hyper-sonic motor (HSM); has internally shifting elements, meaning that the lens doesn’t get longer, or have a rotating front element when it focuses closer; plus, the biggest change of all, it now has an optical stabiliser built in. On paper it seems to be the perfect lens for what I do, so let’s find out if it is. Aesthetics and handling The Looks The first 105mm Sigma macro lens I had was finished in that horrible metallic paint that would always peel off and leave the lens looking like something straight out of a war movie. This new one is made of the same polycarbonate material that my sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS is made from. It’s lightweight but it does seem a bit plasticky to the touch. Because of its smoothness it also tends to pick up fingerprints quite easily, which shouldn’t be a consideration in making a lens choice, but I thought I would point it out nonetheless. I can’t help but think that this lens was modelled on the shape of a can of beer. Take off the lens hood and it has very similar dimensions! Don’t leave it on the table if you’re on a Nikongear workshop where Erik Lund is present because he’ll saw off the bottom, take out the gizzards and likely call it an improvement on the original! Speaking of lens hoods, you can expect the usual Sigma two-part hood in the box, which you bayonet together depending on whether you are shooting FX or DX format cameras. I don’t know if this actually makes a difference - I don’t have a DX format camera to test it out on. Also there is a soft nylon clad padded case for it. In short it is a pretty nicely made lens. Focusing The focusing ring is fairly close to the front end of the lens but in my opinion this is the perfect place to put it, because when you’re holding the camera properly (ie, with your left hand cradling the lens from underneath), it’s a short movement of forefinger and thumb to reach the focus ring, instead of having to hold the lens closer to the camera body if you are focusing manually. The focus throw is pretty short when you’re doing this manually. I don’t have a protractor to measure it with, but a movement of only a few degrees (or notches on the rubber ring) when I am at the minimum focusing distance shifts the focus depth by more than 10 centimeters. This could be critical if you are engaged in focus stacking something like jewellery and only want to shift focus very slightly. You’re going to need a skillful touch to get that right unless of course you have the luxury of a focusing stage for your work. Like most modern lens designs, the new Sigma 105mm Macro allows you to manually over-ride the autofocus without fighting against the HSM motor. I personally never do this, but many other photographers do. The auto-focus speed is very decent on a D700. Nikon forgot to send me copies of the D4 and D800’s so I can’t comment on how this would work on those cameras, but as a man who is committed to his short-term photographic future with the D700, I have to say that this lens has great auto focus ability on that camera. I tested it out in very dim light using both the center and extreme focus points of the D700 and with even the slightest bit of detectible contrast the lens snapped into focus faster than I can say “where the ---- are you?” Sigma advertise that the lens is compatible with their EX range of tele-converters. I have both the 1.4x and 2.0x converters on loan from them to test with the new 120-300mm 2.8 OS so I gave them a whirl on the 105mm too. Under the same conditions as using the lens bare, with the 1.4x tele-converter there is no perceptible degradation in the auto-focus speed as far as I can tell. It’s still pretty darn fast. The 2x tele-converter is a different story: no auto-focus at all. You have to focus manually, which given the short focus throw already mentioned leaves you with limited applications for that combo. On the plus side the optical stabiliser still works with both these TC’s. Image Quality Macro lenses need to be sharp and they need to have the ability to make the subject literally “pop” from the background, which itself is hopefully rendered with creamy smooth bokeh. Those are the most commonly desired characteristics in any lens, but in my case (where I am shooting product) I also need the lens to be sharp at minimum aperture with as little chromatic aberrations on the edges of shiny items as possible. You also don’t want the lens to give you any unnatural colour casts, particularly when you are shooting product, as this will make your post processing just that little bit more tiresome. So, it’s those optical characteristics I set out to discover the virtues of for the purposes of this review. Sharpness Let’s begin with the most desirable characteristic of any lens. Is it sharp? Yes. I found that it is definitely sharp, to the point where I wouldn’t have any problems photographing product with it. I also have the Tamron 90mm 2.5, Nikon 60mm 2.8 and Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR macro lenses and short of trying to measure the actual sharpness of this Sigma compared to those others, what I can say is that I found it a bit sharper than the Tamron wide open, but not as sharp as the Nikons are wide open. When stopped down to values between f/8 and f/22 there’s nothing in it. They’re all as sharp as you could hope them to be and it’s these stopped down apertures where you will find yourself in macro work most of the time. Box ticked. This is the kind of work I would be using this lens for 100% crop (Nikon D700) Bokeh Nearly every macro lens is optically engineered to give you the kind of defocused background that you need to separate your subject from distractions like chain link fences, or big bushes full of leaves with sunlight sprinkled on them. The bokeh refers to the characteristics of how the out of focus highlights are rendered in your photograph. The softer circular highlights are the better the bokeh. Modern lenses mostly deploy curved aperture iris blades to improve this mystical quality of the optics and the Sigma also ticks this box. Out of focus highlights are acceptable to me. This was photographed at fairly close range @f/3.5 with a palm in the background about 1.5m away And here's the same set-up shot at f/8 Chromatic Abberations If there are any, I’m not seeing them clearly enough for it to be an issue and I shot this lens at all apertures and under a variety of different situations. Box ticked. Image Stabiliser It works as it is intended to and I found myself being in the familiar position of being able to use the lens hand held at fairly slow exposures. However, the OS on this lens seems to be very noisy. It makes a loud, indescribable noise on engagement as well as when it stops. I found it quite unsettling and am not sure if it is like this on all copies, or just this test one. There are two modes for the OS; position 1 is for normal shooting and position 2 is for shooting objects that are moving horizontally to the camera. The lens information brochure advises that one should switch off the OS when you are attaching the lens to your camera. I always switch off my camera when I am changing lenses, so I guess that doesn’t really make a difference to me. Compared to the Nikkor: It’s going to be obvious to anybody that the alternative to this lens is the Nikon 105mm 2.8G VR, which I own. As I mentioned, I found the Nikon fractionally sharper at wider apertures than the Sigma, but to be honest, I really had to study the images long and hard to make that conclusion and the difference is so minor that it probably comes down to something like effective aperture at close distance, more than optical formula. The Nikkor is shorter and fatter and has a much bigger lens hood than the Sigma, so looks wise it is a bit different. The handling on this count will also come down to personal preference. One area that I did comparisons between the two lenses thoroughly was the autofocus. I found that the Sigma seems to be slightly quieter than the Nikkor, but when it travels the full length of the focus range it is somewhat slower end-to-end (probably because its optics literally have farther distance to cover). An advantage it has over the Nikkor on AF is that it offers three distance settings for focus limitation. You can set it to cover the full focus range, 0.45m - infinity, or 0.312m to 0.45m. The Nikkor only offers full range and 0.5m to infinity. Overall Opinion & Conclusion Sigma is constantly evolving with their product offering and it’s great to see them giving photographers more options. This lens is like many of those you will find in their EX (pro) range. It’s solidly made, optically excellent and in my opinion you can’t go wrong with this one if you are looking for a good lens for macro purposes. The deciding factor between this lens and that of Nikon’s own 105mm VR for Nikon shooters is probably going to come down to personal preference, because price-wise there isn’t a whole lot of difference between them. The Sigma sells for $769 on both Amazon.com and B&H, whereas the Nikon sells for between $899 and $999 at those same outlets. So if you approach this option logically, the $130 savings that can be had on the Sigma will give you enough to add the 50mm f/1.8D Nikkor to your basket, or a nice new camera bag, or dinner for your SO, or … [fill in your own $130 value]. If you're the kind of photographer who likes to shoot close-ups, or even perhaps extremely sharp portraits on FX frames, I would wholeheartedly suggest looking at this option. It's a great lens. While I still have the sample lens with me I will be adding more sample images to the dedicated sample image gallery for it. If you have images of your own to add to the gallery, please use the link below to get them up there. Reviewed by Dallas Dahms What our members say about this lens Sample image gallery Support this site and use this link to purchase this lens

Here are a few thoughts to keep in mind if you are serious about getting into stacking focus. I realize that most here already know this, but I offer it for those who are just getting started in focus stacking. Best Aperture for Focus Stacking? The best aperture is whatever is the sharpest aperture for the lens you have. You are not looking for depth-of-field here because that is what you will simulate by stacking focus, so don’t stack at f/11 or f/16 just because you may get more DOF. Go for the aperture where your lens is the sharpest, which is usually around f/4-5.6 for most lenses. Let the stacking give you the sense of greater depth-of-field. Focal Length You can stack with pretty much any lens, but keep in mind that the wider the focal length of the lens, the less you need to turn the focus ring for each layer. And most wider-angle lens do not have a long focus throw so just a tiny movement may be enough. If you are stacking with lenses that are 100mm or longer, a lens with a very long focus throw is a real help. I routinely stack with lenses from 35mm to 200mm, most of them being macro lenses. A Good Tripod There are focus stackers who use no tripod, like as kids we would ride a bike and yell out “Look mom, no hands!” I don’t go there and if you want stacks of 6-10 or more layers, it for sure won’t work. Get a good tripod and ball head. Use them. Fast Lenses With focus stacking, especially in early morning or dim light you need a fast lens, not because you are shooting wide open but because you need enough light in the viewfinder to know where your key points of focus are. A lens of f/2.8 or faster is a real blessing in “magic” light of dawn and dusk. Focus Increments There is no set rule here but you want your increments short enough so that the overlap between shots (from the DOF your aperture is set to) is enough to merge well. Some shooters use a focus rail. I just use the focus ring but often move the ring just a tiny bit in each shot. This is something one has to get the hang of. Focus Throw A long focus throw while not useful in sports or action photography is very useful when stacking focus. I was surprised at how short the focus throw is on many fine lenses. If you have a lens you really love for focus stacking and it has a short focus throw, you may have to use a rail. The wonderful Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 APO lens has too short a focus throw for a 60mm macro IMO. Watch the Light This is more of a general photographic concern rather than limited to focus stacking. Pay attention to the light in your frame. If you have variable light, like a shaft of sunlight in a shady place, you may want to modify that shaft of light with a diffuser. I have thrown out more stacked photos because I could not nicely tone down hot spots where clipping occurred than for any other reason. Carry some small translucent diffusers with you and figure out some way (and it is difficult) to position them to filter the hot spots while you step through the focus stacking. The same goes for specular highlights (bright reflections). Tone them down in the field and don’t count on post-processing to be successful in removing or modifying them well. Front to Back Another very common mistake is to not catch the very tip of the front of your subject. You get back home and find a perfectly-stacked photo except that the front-most part is out of focus. It happens a lot. As a rule I back off until the whole thing is out-of-focus and creep up until just before the tip of the top of the front of the subject appears. I stack from there inward. Extraneous Stuff Another way to ruin a shot is to have too much room between the very front of your subject and the subject itself, like a blade of grass in the foreground or a stick, etc. If you can include the grass or stick in the composition (and resolve it), fine, but this is perhaps the most common way to produce large and un-fixable artifacts – a bridge too far. I remove or tie back whatever is intruding in my shot. Yes, Photoshop CS5 can remove extraneous objects pretty well, but so can you and perfectly. Sensor Cleaning Cleaning your sensor takes on another whole meaning when you focus stack. That spec of dust on a single-shot photo becomes a long line when 15-20 layers are stacked, a line not always easy to remove if it passes through part of your subject. They are nasty, so be ready to clean your sensor if you are around dust, which means: just get ready. Touch-up If you imagine that you won't have to touch-up your stacked photos, think it through. Focus stacking is a sampling technique like digital music, etc. By definition sampling means that something is left out. More often than not what is left out may cause unwanted artifacts in the final stacked photo. Plan to fix those if you want a finished looking photo. Focus stacking requires and teaches patience. Focus Stacking Software The focus stacking software I have found convenient are Zerene Stacker, Helicon Focus, and Photoshop CS5, and in that order. These all work more or less well. Photoshop CS5 is a great improvement over CS4 but the program is still not ready for prime time as regards focus stacking and that is an understatement. Both Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus work well and both are available in a demo version so I suggest you try them. I would not consider either the student or 32-bit versions from either company if you value your time. You want the 64-bit versions and that means their pro versions and they are more expensive. Of course if you have a 32-bit computer, you have no choice. By all means get the 64-bit versions which are $289 from Zerene Stacker and $250 from Helicon Focus. I have tried and purchased both of these packages and have done (relatively speaking) a lot of focus stacking. Both companies have fine software. That being said, my personal preference is very much with Zerene Stacker and I have a couple of reasons. One is that the retouch feature in Zerene Stacker is much better than that in Helicon Focus IMO. And retouch is the name of the game the deeper you go into stacking focus. Why? The reason is simiple. Focus stacking is a sampling technique much like digital music CDs sample from an analog base. By definition all samples are just that, “samples,” and that means something is not sampled or left out. In the case of focus stacking what is left out tends to cause unwanted artifacts to appear that detract from and can ruin a stacked photo. So as much as I originally resisted retouching any stacked photo, over time I have accepted that it has to be done. After all most of us accept quite easily that we have to fiddle with white balance and other factors in post prepossessing. Retouching is the same idea. Therefore a very easy-to-use retouching method as in Zerene Stacker is worth a lot to me. It is really a brilliant solution. My second reason is that the support and hand-holding from the Zerene Stacker staff is exemplary and I have been in the software business for a long time (second only to Microsoft on the Internet) and run a software company full-time. I am sure the other companies also have good support. You pretty much have to pay for Adobe support, so I won’t go there just now. So take thirty days and check out some software and find out which brand you like. Summary There you have a few suggestions on focus stacking. I should add one more comment: Patience and Exercise Macro and close-up photography is a slow process, ideal for those of us who need to learn patience. If done well stacking photos can slow us down until we are forced to experience just the present moment. For many of us who are busy and think too much, this is a good thing and a respite, the best medicine I know. It is also physically the perfect exercise for older folks. What else would possibly induce me to get up, get down, get up again, now get on my knees, now on my side, etc.? You could not pay me to get the exercise I naturally get when motivated by this or that wonderful shot. It is especially good for the abdomen, all the holding of the breath, keeping perfectly still, maintaining a pose, etc. This is all good. Your thoughts? I also have two books (2nd edition) on focus stacking that are free e-book downloads here: http://macrostop.com/ Photo with Nikon D3s and Voightlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar lens