[Recovered Thread: 86950]

[Nagasaki]

Nice shot Bernabeu but not what I'd call a macro shot, unless the turtle is very small.

For me a macro shot is when the subject is about 1" long or maybe 2".

[DBB]

Thaipo Negative wrote:

Yes you are right, its been a while, the 50-500mm is an EX so its going to be better quality than the 170-500mm. I have seen some complaints about the previous model of the 170-500mm.
It seems that he doesnt quite get what a macro is for since he is asking about it in relation to birds, which macro is the last thing you want unless the birds are stuffed.

It's a wee bit of a confusing post. But it appears that the OP would like information on BOTH macro and birding....:lol:

There are a number of 3 to 5 thousand dollar lenses with VR that will probably do a better job then the Bigma 50-500.

On the other hand....



Dave

[JimC]

DBB wrote:

There are a number of 3 to 5 thousand dollar lenses with VR that will probably do a better job then the Bigma 50-500.

He doesn't need VR since he's using a KM 7D (anti-shake built into the body). It would be an interesting combination if it weren't so darn big heavy (hence, the "Bigma" name). Also, I've seen a lot of praise (and nice photos) from this lens from KM DSLR owners.

But, I wouldn't want to lug one around (or try to use one without a tripod or monopod). No 4 pound lenses for me. LOL So, the Anti-shake wouldn't make any difference from my perspective, as I wouldn't want a lens that long. I'm not much of a "birder" though. LOL

On the other hand....

Nice shot!

[JimC]

My idea of "birding" would be something like this, taken with the Minolta 35-70mm f/4 Macro lens that bernabeu mentioned. :-) :blah:

Although, it's not what I'd consider to be a Macro lens.

I got mine for $52 from http://www.keh.com (and that included a working Maxxum 7000 35mm SLR in great shape, too).

Here's one just playing around with the lens, shooting wide open with it.

Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D, 35-70mm f/4 Macro, ISO 200, 1/1000 second, wide open at f/4, zoomed in all the way at 70mm:

[DBB]

JimC wrote:

DBB wrote:

He doesn't need VR since he's using a KM 7D (anti-shake built into the body). It would be an interesting combination if it weren't so darn big heavy (hence, the "Bigma" name). Also, I've seen a lot of praise (and nice photos) from this lens from KM DSLR owners.

But, I wouldn't want to lug one around (or try to use one without a tripod or monopod). No 4 pound lenses for me. LOL So, the Anti-shake wouldn't make any difference from my perspective, as I wouldn't want a lens that long. I'm not much of a "birder" though. LOL

Nice shot!

I can be sooooo stuborn. So, I enjoy using "heavy" lenses. I find that you need to get used to them. So, I goes out and gets the Sigma, and tell my self, "After two months, this will be no problem."

Two months go by and sure enough, as long as I'm in 50mm mode, I'm used to it. But to get the zoom, you have to extend it. So as well as being heavy, it's now sticking out 13.5 inches.

I never did "get used to it. But I know people who have. Big strong guys, ex football players, olympic weight lifters - you know the crowd...:lol:

On the other hand, I'm fine with this lens and a monopode.

Works great, and the auto focus isn't as slow as they say.

Now I'm shooting with a telescope and a monopode. But it's sooooo much lighter then the Sigma, that I can shoot handheld - telescope and monopode weigh less than the Sigma.

Dave

[Mountain Hawk]

Thaipo Negative wrote:

It seems that he doesnt quite get what a macro is for since he is asking about it in relation to birds, which macro is the last thing you want unless the birds are stuffed.

Sorry about the confusion but I had 2 separate questions. I am after a telephoto lense to about 500mm for birding and I am also after a macro for fungi, leaves & beetles.

Thank you everybody for some great links and opinions on these lenses. You have given me the tools to work with so I can research and get the best lense. It seems that for the Macro a 50mm EX Macro lens might be the option.

Well done :-):-)and thank you so very much.

[Thaipo Negative]

http://photonotes.org/articles/begin...ses.html#macro

I am also looking at a macro as my next lens

This one has 5 times magnification.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...p;modelid=7325

But in the meantime there is the question of 50mm vs 105mm. Why would you use one rather than the other. There is the working distance, but that only provides a reason to work further away and doesnt address why you would want to be closer?

[Nagasaki]

If you're using it only as a macro lens I can't think of many times that you want to get closer, although with something static like a flower as long as lighting isn't a problem then working distance isn't really an issue. You will get slightly more depth of field on the 50mm for any F stop.

I like the field of view of the 50mm lens when using it in non macro mode. As I explained earlier most of my photography is underwater so a shorter working distance is a must when the water is murky, as it often is around the UK.

If it's working distance you want Sigma also make 150 and 180mm lenses with 1:1 macro. With the 180mm you've also got a reasonable telephoto for some bird shots although a longer focal length is probably needed depending on the size of bird and how close you can get.

[Mountain Hawk]

Yeh I see what you mean. I am happy to have a lens specific for macro so heading out towards the 150 or 180mm isnt really an issue here. I think from what you guys have told me and from what I have seen and heard the 50mm f2.8 macro will be a great additioninmy camera bag. Being around the $500 mark for the EX, it isnt too expensive either.

Thanks again for the great information and without a doubt you guys have by far the best forum for Info and help threads.

Thanks again.