Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 24, 2005, 12:07 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 46
Default

Opps - sorry, I was only trying to help, but as I stated previously, I am not an expert. Not only that, I didn't read the request carefully - I had another thought going... I do like the 85/1.8, but you are correct - it is not a Macro.
acrabb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 3:49 AM   #12
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

perdendosi wrote:
Quote:
Sheesh. That's awfully expensive for an ef-s lens... (especially when you can get great, sharp sigma 50mm or 105mm macros for 2/3 to 3/4 the "sale" price!)
I think Canon has done itself no favours with the way it's gone about marketing the EF-S designation.

Based on Optical Quality alone the 10-22mm, if it were full-frame, would certainly have an L designation. Based on Optical Quality alone the 17-85mm would probably also have an L designation, though some early reviews suggested real problems with CA - I've seen none on my copy where I would have expected to if it were there to any significant degree.

Of course the Build Quality of L lenses is much higher.

Based on the price of the new 60mm macro I would hazard to guess that Canon are going for L-grade optics again for the reduced frame size.

The 18-55 is clearly a cheap consumer grade lens - and unfortunately it's the most commonly found S lens; it therefore tars the reputation of the others lenses in the S range.


For comparison purposes:

Link to Canon 50mm Macro MTF chart:

http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/P...8&tag_id=10098

Link to Canon 100mm Macro MTF chart:

http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/P...6&tag_id=10096

Link to Canon 60mm S Macro MTF chart:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=11156

Not much comparison really. The S way ahead of the 50mm and a fair distance ahead of the 100mm! And don't forget the Canon 100mm macro is regarded by most as the best ~100mm macro around, significantly better than the Tamrom and Sigma and marginally better than the Nikkor.

So if you're happy with the reduced frame then you could easily argue that the new 60mm is more expensive than the Tamron or Sigma because it's a better lens.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 6:44 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Not much comparison really. The S way ahead of the 50mm and a fair distance ahead of the 100mm! And don't forget the Canon 100mm macro is regarded by most as the best ~100mm macro around, significantly better than the Tamrom and Sigma and marginally better than the Nikkor.
1. There's nothing such as a bad macro lens.
2. The Canon MTF is given at two apertures stopped down to f/8 (upper curves) and wide open (lower curves)... The Sigma's are only given at wide open. One should compare the curves at comparable aperture since a lens is always sharper when closed down (upper curves) - With this in view the Sigmas are then really good in comparison (ie @ wide open)!



... and here's some proofs - :idea:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...m_id=11&page=1


Also the Sigma 50 f/2.8 macro is simply one of the sharpest and considered by many to be an outstanding lens! http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 9:35 AM   #14
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I stand corrected.

Regarded by some: it just so happens that the March 2005 Issue of UK magazine Practical Photography compared all the ~100mm macro lenses and gave the Canon top marks ahead of the Nikkor and said the Sigma was good but weaker at the edges.

The MTF chart for the Sigma 105mm does tend to suggest it outperforms the Canon 105mm at maximum aperture. It doesn't show performance at smaller apertures, which may be more relevant for macro shots. However the Sigma would also serve very well as a portrait lens with nice boke I feel.

However you make a good point - all macro lenses are generally made to a higher standard than non-macros.

The sample pics from the Sigma 105mm you posted the link to were amazing. And one may well say (I was thinking of a macro myself at some point) if the Sigma is that good then how much better can you get or would you need?

However we don't have many samples from the new Canon 60mm yet so who knows.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 11:50 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Peripatetic

It's not anyone fault - Sigma has too many lenses with the same designation with 'DG' version being the latest (and just recently available....) Most reviews are of the older generation, so one should pay particular attention to this suffix when making comparison!

Plus remember we're only using up to about ~13mm (ie the best part of the lens) on a 20D... What weaker edges?
BTW the Tamron 90mm is also outstanding, just slighly slower AF that's all, but it had a perfect score!!! :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 4:03 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
KM_krazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:

Also the Sigma 50 f/2.8 macro is simply one of the sharpest and considered by many to be an outstanding lens! http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50
I think I will look into that lens a little more. . .hmmmmm
KM_krazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 4:28 PM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

also the 1.6x crop factor makes a 50mm macro much more desirable than previously..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 8:48 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
KM_krazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
Default

Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
also the 1.6x crop factor makes a 50mm macro much more desirable than previously..
I think I will probably get the Sigma 50mm EX DG f2.8 macro lens, which would then be equal to a 75mm.
I have used 50mm macro lenses before, and I had no problem with being "too close" so 75mm should be fine:G
Thanks for the help!
KM_krazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 10:59 AM   #19
skr
Junior Member
 
skr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6
Default

Hello,

the distance beetween the suject and body (digital camera) is different.

WIth 100 mm you can photography insects who was afear.

You can also use your 100 for portrait.

The Canon 100 mm 1/1 but the Canon 50 mm is 1/2.

The AF is quickly.

I thing that the best choose for more pratical is 100 mm. You can add

stand.

For a good quality you are also :

Sigma 105EXDG 1/1.

Tarmon 50EX DG 1/1

More cheap and good : SIgma 50EX DG 1/1 but not for somes insects.

A+

SKR


skr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2005, 10:34 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
KM_krazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
Default

Does anyone know if I could use like an extention tube or something on that 50mm Sigma?
I haven't ever used them before, but they seem to be a nice idea. . .:?
KM_krazy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:01 PM.