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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 8, 2005, 6:41 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Now that I have my walk around lense and zoom lense that I love very much Tamron 28-75 2.8 and Sigma 100-300 f/4

I would like to get a dedicated micro lense. Was leaning to Sigma 150mm micro but I dont know if I want a fixed focal length for micro photagrapy. So if anyone has any thoughts or personal experiences to share please feel free to help. And if it is a resonably priced Canon lense with better optics than Sigma micros, so be it. But I would rather have Sigma or Tamron.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 8, 2005, 7:08 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

everything i have heard about this lens has been positive.. for dedicated macro, you should stick with a fixed focal length.. the 150-180mm range is a good choice..

another cheaper option would be a set of extension tubes and a diopter for the 100-300..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 7:20 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

I have read a lot of good reviews on the 150mm 2.8 as far as the optics are concerned but I have also read where it likes to hunt alot during focusing especially when light is low. Not a really big deal when the subject is stationary but would frustrate me when shooting butterflies etc. I have read really good things on the 105mm 2.8 Sigma but I am not sure if that would be a very good rangefor insects that are prone to flying or scurrying away at the site of someone. I need a lense with good or decent range with precise focusing or at least really good focusing. I really dont want to spend more than $600.00 or so being that micro is the only thing I will be useing it for.

Thanks for the reply.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 7:30 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

This is a decent shot from my old Nikon D-70 and the 28-300 Tamron Di lense.
Attached Images
 
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2005, 6:43 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=72569

1. There are no such thing as a 'bad' macro lens
2. IMO a lens does not hunt, but the camera does (where the AF algorithm is)
3. Most macros are very 'iffy' @ close distance since the focus plane is so narrow...
4. The 150 is the 2nd Sigma macro lens to have HSM, the 105 don't
5. The Tamron 90mm is also legendary...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2005, 9:01 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Quote:
And yes Lboy, I would like to hear your thoughts also.
Yeeehaa !!!My very own personal request. ?

Ok then, Macro Lenses.

Firstly I don't do a whole lot of this now or in the past. I do however enjoy to look at examples, and read about this subject. I do also pick up my colleagues personal equipment in interest. But seeing as I've been asked. I would recommend John Shaw's Close-ups in Nature, which considers every possibility in producing macro and near macro shots. I spent a bit of time at college playing around with extension tubes and reversing lenses and such before the joy of L came into vision. :G I have the Canon 180mm which I can only justify owning (due to its lack of use) because I was lucky enough to pick it up at a laughable price. On the few occasions I have played with this lens it has bowled me over. I keep meaning to spend some time with it, and will eventually.

In terms of my preference here goes.

1. Canon 180mm f3.5L -- Approx $1400

2. Tamron 180mm f3.5 --Approx $700

3. Canon 100mm f2.8 --Approx $670

4. Tamron 90mm --wow, How much?

I would say to get the finest results then definitely use a true macro lens that is optimised for flat field and close focusing sharpness. At approx 100 and 180 the best lenses are Canon and Tamron. The Sigma's I have not used as you know they bring me out in a rash. :-)Seriously though I have heard good things about the105mm but bad about its mechanics, autofocus is OK, but far slower than USM lenses. At the price level your talking about my 2[suP]nd[/suP] choice is looking very good. I have put the 180's before the 90's because you are looking for better working distance.

The Canon 180 is the perfect professional quality macro lens, capable of not only close-ups to life-size, but like most of Canon's macro lenses, it can also be used like a normal lens for landscape and portrait photography. Really it's a beautiful piece of glass capable of magnificent macro images. The focusing range is switch-able from between .5 meter to infinity, and from 1.5m to infinity, which makes it quicker to focus- by the way. Extenders can also be used to increase the focal length.

In general, Tamron's AF performance is pretty good, but not on a par with the Canon. The Tamron's have a smaller build and lighter weight, but overall the Canon is a much better mechanical design. In terms of handling, the Canon is the obvious winner since it has USM and FTM. As you can see though the Canons are pricey.

All in all I would say that in those places where the price of both lenses is fairly close the Canon is probably the better choice, but where there might be a significant price difference (such as in the UK where I live) then the Tamron is certainly worth considering since it delivers also a high performance.

Arowana,

I would say thats more than just a decent shot. Absolutely fantastic. Colours, composition, DOF and cool bokeh. Well its all there. Could quite easily feature in the pages of Focus magazine. If anything you could crop off a little of the top and left hand. Also there are two leaves I notice that need to have selective blur applied to blend into the background bokah. Still great though.
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2005, 9:51 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Just ordered the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM Micro and an extention tube.$640.00 for the whole thing including shipping. Hope I made the right choice. I tried all the Sigma lenses out and they just do not make a very good micro lense. Sorry Sigma. Keep trying. The 180mm was O.K. The 150mm was kinda fast but the focus was not very accurate and the optics are not really good. And the 105mm was just garbage. My local camera store did not have the 100mm Canon in stock so I have not tried it out yet. But all reviews and sample pics look really good. We will see.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2005, 11:01 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Garbage? - Check its MTF against the competitors...

FYI:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=33856
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32330
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32175
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2005, 10:32 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

I really like Sigma lenses. Would love to have a whole bag full of them. And already have a few. I like all the Sigma lenses I have bought so far. But I did not buy any of them because a computer graph said it was good. I want user thoughts, photos, and my own personal experience to make my decision. And I spent an hour yesterday with two copys of the 105 Sigma. With flash and without. From f2.8 to f45. And many diffrent shutter speeds. I took pictures of people, magazines and a little fly on the wall. The lense was very slow, noisy and even with the focus limiter on it took forever for the thing to focus. And I dont want to hear anything else about ( the camera hunts not the lense). The lense is the very reason the camera hunts for focus. And this lense proves it. As I said before, Sigma makes great lenses. But this isnt one of them. Mabey if you started out in photograpy in the film only days( NOT YOU IN PATICULAR NHL )and really have not got a taste of new technology this lense is probably great.But I started in digital and compared to all other lenses I have had the pleasure of useing, this one is junk. People can read all the charts they want to but you will never really know how good a lense is with your camera till you takeit for a personal test drive. As I said I may be making a mistake with the Canon I ordered but all the USER!!!! reviews I have read and all the sample pictures I have seen taken with a 20-D have been great. We will see.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2005, 5:07 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

arowana

I can understand your frustration with the 105mm - I would buy an USM/HSM lens as well for a more silent/faster focus, but note that most if not all macro lenses have a higher gearing ratio for a more precise focus up close which add to the noise factor and the sluggish feel that you experienced (i.e. it can never be as fast as your 100-300 f/4 since it has to focus to a few mm @ 1:1). You can call the 105mm EX garbage if you want, but the facts are most folks have gotten excellent results with this lens (as you can see by the critiques - and the MTF's back the lens up as well):
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=17465
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=16955

... plus many more 'digital' users over here:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/105_28_ex_dg_macro
NHL 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 10:16 AM.