#1  
Old 08-07-2010, 08:38 PM
barx1963's Avatar
barx1963 (Malcolm)
Bright the hawk's flight

barx1963 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mt Duneed Vic
Posts: 3,978
Macro lenses 100mm vs 105mm

I am considering investing in a macro lenses. From my reading a lense around the 100mm range is a decent starting point.
The 2 I am tossing around are the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro which I can pick up for about $600 or a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens which is nearer the $800 mark or more.
Anyone had experience with these 2 and can they give any advice especially with regard to if the extra $$$ for the Canon will make a difference.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-07-2010, 03:39 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
I had the Canon 100 as my first macro lens, and bought the Sigma 105 for my wife, so have used both a bit. You won't notice any difference in them optically. Typically the true macro lenses are very sharp. Also the autofocus on them you might find pretty slow, well, slower than your other lenses. This doesn't matter too much because for macro you'll probably be using manual focus anyway.

Difference between the Canon 100 and Sigma 105 is that the Canon stays the same length when focusing. The Sigma barrel extends as you focus closer. Doesn't really bother me that much, because when shooting macro I usually dial the lens in to whatever focus distance I want first, then move forwards or backwards to get the subject in the depth of field. It may bother you if you have a flash mounted on a bracket and you have to adjust the flash head position every time to change magnification/focus. I don't consider this a big deal, but some may.

Another option I'd recommend is the Tamron 90. Friend had it. Again, very good optics, good price too. I believe the aperture blades are curved. For most macro lenses, because the depth of field is so narrow, you usually get really nice bokeh in the macro range. But for normal, terrestrial, shooting I've seen the Tamron 90 give some really nice bokeh, particularly on specular highlights, points of light. Think JJJnettie here has one, and I've seen some of her astro widefields taken with it. The stars seem to have nicer shapes, not as many of those spikes you see on other lens widefields.

Just thought that might be a consideration for someone on an astro-forum.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-07-2010, 04:00 AM
luigi
Registered User

luigi is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 438
I used both
I didn't like the Sigma, it was ok for macro use but for normal use the AF was too slow, hunting a lot. The extending barrel was another big no-no I can't understand how Sigma can sell a macro lens that chages size!

I moved to the EF-S 60mm F2.8 if you have an APS-C body go for it, it has been my sharpest lens up to date, compact, light, amazing.
I have the Canon 100 now on my 5DII it's very sharp and very nice but I liked the EF-S 60 even more.

Tamron 90, Tokina 90 are also great macro lenses.

Hope it helps.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-07-2010, 04:45 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by luigi View Post
...
The extending barrel was another big no-no I can't understand how Sigma can sell a macro lens that chages size!
...
Re: the extending barrel - the Canon MP-E 65, undisputed King of all macro lenses[1], works in exactly the same way. It's really not a problem. As I said, at macro working distances you dial in the magnification you want first, then just rock forward and backward (we're only talking millimetres) until the subject is in focus.

[1] My opinion only, but I'm always right.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-07-2010, 04:54 AM
luigi
Registered User

luigi is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 438
I think the MPE-65 is on a different league
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-07-2010, 08:11 AM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
I think the MPE-65 is a scary beast....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-07-2010, 07:16 PM
barx1963's Avatar
barx1963 (Malcolm)
Bright the hawk's flight

barx1963 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mt Duneed Vic
Posts: 3,978
Yes the MP-E65 is a scary beast, not least the price! Anyways, thanks for all your advice, all things considered I have ordered the Sigma 105 as my first "true" macro lense and I have also ordered a focusing rail to assist a bit with its use. Hope the new tripod I just bought is OK to hold it all!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement