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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 15, 2005, 7:07 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

I have been reviewing a lot of posted photos comparing the Canon 100mm micro,the Sigma 105mm micro and the Sigma 150mm micro. I have noticed that people are getting more full frame (or significatly closer) pictures useing the Canon and Sigma100 and 105 than with the Sigma 150. This is a concern since I just ordered the 150. I know that the 150 has a longer lense to subject focus range than the others but I figured that since I would be working with a 150mm lense I could still get just as magnified photos than the others. I checked all the photos for evidence of using extension tubes and could not find any. So is it true? Can you get closer with a 100 or 105 than a 150 without an extension or are all micros equal at 1:1 magnification?
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 15, 2005, 8:02 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I can't directly answer your question (I don't own any of the lenses) but I'll wander around the question.

The 150mm macro (sigma) has a close-focusing distance of 15 inches.
The 105mm macro (sigma) has a close-focusing distance of 12 inches.
The 100mm macro (canon) has a close-focusing distance of 12 inches.

50% longer reach would (I believe) overcome 3" of longer subject distance.

Maybe its subject related? That people are picking bugs and such that are really small for the 150 macro and you can't get very close to them?

Maybe the people with the shorter lenses are more apt to crop more? Are you sure the pictures are all full-frame? That would certainly throw off the research.

Personally, I see no reason to believe that the 150 wouldn't be capable of making just a big if not bigger pictures of the same subject.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2005, 11:43 PM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI - http://www.wetpixel.com/i.php/full/s...f28-apo-dg-ex/

They all have 1:1 -> the 'working' distance is further out (check the 180mm as well)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...83&navigator=5
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2005, 11:54 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

I read all of the specs on the micro lenses. I was just refering to all the posted pics on the internet. About 85% of the pics posted from the 150mm Sigma had a lot of background in them and 75 to 80% of the fotos posted from the 105mm Sigma was just the subject at hand such as insects or flowers. Not a lot of background. I was just wondering if you could get closer with the 105 than the 150 without extension tubes. I am only going to use this lense as a dedicated micro for insects and some flowers not a portrait lens or landscape lense. I was just wondering if the 150 was a smarter decision than the 105. The one thing I really liked about the 150 is I can use my 1.4x tele without having to get a tube or adapter. You can not mount the 1.4 tele to the 105 without something between the lense and tele cause the glass in the tele extends to far out and the glass in the 105 is to close to the back of the lense and they it each other.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/239166

The first link is a photo from the 105. No tubes.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/236678

The second was from the 150. No tubes.

If you look at the two fly shots you can see what I am talking about. And the Dragonfly pic is just horriable in my opinion. If thats what I can expect from my 150 micro I will return it and stick with the Sigma 105. 200 dollars cheaper and better micro quality. Well see. I have seen where a lot of people have said " There is no bad micro " but I am begining to wonder.

arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2005, 12:16 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

arowana wrote:
Quote:
I was just wondering if the 150 was a smarter decision than the 105.
IMO it is, but then is a 180/200 smarter still? At the expense of weight and cost... http://frogweb.org/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=8

-> you have more stand-off for the same 1:1 magnification (ie the 2nd link was not shot at 1:1!)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2005, 12:23 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Cool link. Thanks. The 150 is as big as I want to get because of the weight. I guess if all else fails I can buy the 105 later for those hand held shots. I am sure I will be happy with the 150. If not, thank goodness for the return policy.

And I am in no way questioning your Photograpy knowledge, but how do you know that it was not shot at 1:1. I thought that was what the 150 was.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2005, 4:18 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

It is okay to not care for a macro shot with a limited DOF but to dismiss it as horrible is a little harsh. Before you spend the price of a lens in return postage I would urge you to study macro and get a grip on what 1:1 means and how DOF is effected in macro and what results to expect. I have followed your quest through the last several threads and no matter which lens you select next I fear you are in for a let down again.


Attached Images
 
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2005, 6:47 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Now see, that is the kind of shot I am looking for. What lense is that photo from? And I did not mean anything bad about the comment I made about the picture in the previous thread, I was only talking about DOF and the sharpness not the photographer or his/her skill. I have taken many shots that would make there photo look like a work of art. I meant no disrespect.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2005, 7:05 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I believe that's Tomsch 180mm EX macro :-)

1:1 is 1:1!
The 150mm will do it too, but at a different distance from the 105 (or the 180!)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2005, 7:48 AM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

arowana wrote:
Quote:
I was only talking about DOF and the sharpness not the photographer or his/her skill.
What they're trying to tell you, is that there is no signficant difference in these factors between these lenses.

They are 1:1 Macro Lenses,so they will all be able to fill the frame with the same size subject. Only the working distance is different.

Depth of Field was shallow (causing a portion of the dragonfly to be blurred) because of the Aperture selected. Why do you think he said this:

Quote:
"All my first pictures seem to have too large aperture, a problem which I guessed beforehand"


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/236678

If you select a larger aperture (smaller f/stop number), you'll get a shallower Depth of Field (less of the scene in focus as you get further away from your focus point). If you select a smaller aperture (higher f/stop number), you'll get greater Depth of Field (more of an image in focus as you get further away from your focus point).

If the same percentage of the frame was filled with the other macro lenses, you'd have the same shallow depth of field, unless you used a smaller aperture (something the photographer controls).

The Focal Length would not have made any difference (even though Depth of Field is based on Aperture, Focus Distance and Focal Length). This is because if you use a longer lens,you have to be further away for the subject to fill the same percentage of the frame, cancelling outthe shallower depth of field from the longer focal length.

IOW, pick the lens that you are more comfortable shooting with (factoring in that the lens could be used for other purposes, too). Do you want to shoot your macro subjects from closer or further away? That's the onlysignificant difference you're going to see with things like Depth of Field (given the same aperture settings,shootingthe same size subject,filling the same percentage of the frame).

You will have a difference in perspective, but that's about it.
JimC 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 6:40 PM.