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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 24, 2006, 9:47 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

harana wrote:
Quote:
With a 1.6x crop camera would Sigma 105/2.8 make more sense for outdoor (critters/flowers)and indoor macro/portrait photography?
Actually a 50mm will be much better for indoor portraits, but then when I did indoor portraits - I usually shoot with the lens closed down for maximum sharpness while the background is controlled by the backdrops...

-> For outdoor portraits however the 150mm is actually better because @ f/2.8 this lens has less DOF to shut out the background than my wide open EF-85mm f/1.2L (and a lot sharper too)
Just a thought! :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2006, 1:27 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 238
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
harana wrote:
Quote:
With a 1.6x crop camera would Sigma 105/2.8 make more sense for outdoor (critters/flowers)and indoor macro/portrait photography?
Actually a 50mm will be much better for indoor portraits, but then when I did indoor portraits - I usually shoot with the lens closed down for maximum sharpness while the background is controlled by the backdrops...

-> For outdoor portraits however the 150mm is actually better because @ f/2.8 this lens has less DOF to shut out the background than my wide open EF-85mm f/1.2L (and a lot sharper too)
Just a thought! :idea:
Thanks for the great advice. Much appreciated..
harana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 2:21 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
JohnReid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 734
Default

Thanks again NHL

The last thing I forgot to mention was that the Canon 100is 150$s cheaper then the Sigma 150. I know the amount doesn't seem that significant, but when you convert to Rands(my currency), its quite substantial.

I think I'm going to go for the Sigma though and not regret having spent the extra cash later.
JohnReid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 6:59 AM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnReid wrote:
Quote:
The last thing I forgot to mention was that the Canon 100is 150$s cheaper then the Sigma 150. I know the amount doesn't seem that significant, but when you convert to Rands(my currency), its quite substantial.
You're comparing apples to oranges: The Canon 100mm should be priced against the Sigma 105mm (and not the 150mm)!!!
The 150mm EX is more like a 180mm on a 1.6x camera, but more compact and lighter - What is the $/Rands differences between the 180mm??? :lol: :-) :G

-> and why most folks opt for the 150mm EX now even over Sigma own 180mm EX HSM... :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 7:58 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
JohnReid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 734
Default

I know I'm comparing apples and oranges. In my case, the lens I choose is going to dictate what I shoot, therefore I can compare them (sort of).

Think I've settled on the Sigma 150 - seems the best for what I'm wanting to do with it.
JohnReid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 1:21 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20
Default

On the Sigma website it says that the Sigma EX 150 is great for indoor sports because of the f/2.8.

But being a macro - isn't it to slow on AF to be used with indoor sports?
kabl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2006, 11:45 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

kabl wrote:
Quote:
On the Sigma website it says that the Sigma EX 150 is great for indoor sports because of the f/2.8.

But being a macro - isn't it to slow on AF to be used with indoor sports?
I would say the high-speed HSM mechanism is fast in AF, but any lens that has to focus from 15" to infinity would take a while to span that huge distance... :-)

-> The limit switch might do it, but the new 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro would be a better choice in this situation
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2006, 9:38 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 40
Default

NHL, you said "The limit switch might do it, but the new 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro would be a better choice in this situation".

Are you implying that this lensachieves the elusive grail of a macro lens with AF fast enough for sports? Have you had a chance to test it, or know of anyone who has?

Cheers,

Gordonj
gordonj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27, 2006, 6:50 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I have the 150mm f/2,8 EX Macro - When you use the limit switch to halve the focusing range from .52m to infinity (instead of .38m to infinity), it speeds up the AF search somewhat but in no way can it compare to the fastness of a 70-200 f/2.8 (which I also have)

It's hard to describe this unless you handle the lenses: on the macro one has to turn the focusing ring more for less distance change on the lens scale (i.e. there's some kind of reduction gear inside to allow for a more precise focus). On the 70-200 the focusing ring and the distance scale is almost a one to one match in travel...

IMO the 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro is the lens for action shots and you can get by with its semi macro capability (i.e. 1:3.5) which is about the same magnification as the 150mm Macro when its limit switch is set to .52m!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2006, 3:11 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Don't want to hijack the thread :-)
this is a similar question between 2 macro lenses.

I'm off looking for a longer dedicated macro lens.:idea: (little bit of a scare with rattle snakes last weekend :G)
My choice is between the Sigma 150 F2.8 and the Sigma 180 F3.5.
They are the same price, and in macro work you need a small F stop to get any DOF at all, so 2.8 would not really too useful.
How do these two compare to each other optically?
I've used the Tamron 180 F3.5 and it was excellent, but it is almost double the price of the Sigmas. :?

PeterP 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 5:29 AM.