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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 15, 2005, 11:01 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
polarwasp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 167
Default

I played a bit during lunch with my new 350D in the park next door...

There are fine flowers and insects there which could fill 12:00 to 13:00 a few times a week!

So,If I am toconsider a macro lens, which would give me a good value for money?


EDIT (17-06-2005)

Aftergoing through the forum, I found more post on macro lenses

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

and a set of great pictures http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32175). There's also and (!) a long post on the TAMRON 90mm MACRO elsewhere...(http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon...cro/index.html).

So I got a short list

- SIGMA 105mm f2.8 DG MACRO

- SIGMA 150mm f2.8 f2.8 MACRO


The Canon are often described as too expensive and/or not as good as the SIGMA lenses... And the shots you see from the SIGMA's are just great. There is a lot of skills involved, but it feels worth it!

So the question is which of the SIGMA's?
Attached Images
 
polarwasp is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 15, 2005, 11:35 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 106
Default

sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG is one of the best option considering the price range (350$)
pasu_chennai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2005, 2:18 PM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i would have to agree.. u would be equally served with the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro.. both are of exceptional quality and offer similarly excellent optics..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2005, 12:18 AM   #4
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

I am also interested in this, and was considering the two lenses already mentioned but also the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro, and the new EF-S 60mm f2.8. Any thoughts on these?
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2005, 4:56 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

limbiksys wrote:
Quote:
I am also interested in this, and was considering the two lenses already mentioned but also the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro, and the new EF-S 60mm f2.8. Any thoughts on these?
Repeat - There are no such thing as bad macro lenses!!! :idea:

... Read this carefully - "lens of around 60 mm focal length almost surely has too small a working distance for most subjects in the field: your lens will intrude into the animal's "fear circle" and spook it into flight long before you are close enough for a good image. A lens of around 105 mm focal length has a decent working distance, and, indeed, is the field workhorse focal length for most close-up photography. A lens of around 200 mm focal length provides even greater stand-off distance and, if all other things were equal, would probably be unequivocally better than one in the 105 mm range, with a tremendous increase in the ratio of successful "captures". However, a 200 mm lens is significantly heavier and bulkier than lenses in the 105 mm range, making it much more difficult to handle in the field. With a lens of 200 mm focal length, with its added weight and its higher magnification exaggerating vibrations, you will almost certainly want a tripod support where possible. However, when you are face-down on a muddy creek trying to get eye-level with a bullfrog, a tripod is almost impossible to use. This is where the hand-holdability of a rig centered around a lens in the 105 mm range may outweigh the benefits of one centered around a lens in the 200 mm range. Nonetheless, if you can afford a 200 mm 1:1 macro lens (usually two to three times more expensive than a 105 mm prime 1:1 macro lens), you might, in the long run, be better off with it - the increased stand-off distance means enough "breathing room" to play when setting up the shot that you can use the tripod in more circumstances."http://frogweb.org/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=8

-> Buy what you can afford and most confortable at using
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2005, 7:38 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
polarwasp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 167
Default

NHL is the source of all wisdom !!

for me, the choice is SIGMA 105mm f2.8...

...hum should I get the DG :??

That was the topic of another thread ...

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

choice done! thank you all for your help:G !
polarwasp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2005, 8:48 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 106
Default

I am very much interested in buying the 105 DG version.
I have no doubt abt the macro capability of this

I have a question though.

How good this lens is for potrait and some sports action ????
(may be expecting little more out of this lens)


Thanks
Pasupathi
pasu_chennai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2005, 9:35 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Just as Tomsch wrote before:
Quote:
The 50mm is under rated. The Sigma is 1:1, where the Canon is not. The Sigma is sharp, go look at the charts for the Sigma and then the Canon 50f1.8 that everyone likes! Wow shocking isn't it? The Sigma 50mm is 1:1, focuses to infinity and is sharp and it is very reasonable. If someone wants a lens to shoot occational macros I send them that way.
Check the MTF curves for the 105mm EX DG and you'll be in for a shock as well... (especially when wide-opened for portrait!) :idea:

-> IMHO you'll have to live with the slower focusing speed with the macros so action sport is out!
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 10:59 AM.