Is this a decent beginner setup for macro

[Ogrt48]

Right now I have a DRebel, kit lens, 50 1.8 and the crappy canon 75-300.
I'm interested in macro a lot, mainly bugs and stuff but I'm really pushing it on cost with these items. I want to get 1:1 so I need a real macro lens. I just want to know if the Sigma 105mm and the sigma 50mm macros are great for their price? How much working distance would each of them give me to get 1:1 ? I also need a flash and the canons don't look too hot for the cost so I was looking at the sigma Sigma EF-500 DG ST E-TTL Shoe Mount Flash for $150. The two lens above are $399 for the 105 and $269 for the 50mm.

I just really can't decide which lens because I dont know the working distance they each need. I can't have the bugs and stuff flying away :(

[Scottes]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=94767

Should answer a bunch of your questions.

I have the older Sigma 105mm, and it is a very good lens. I'd get the Canon 100mm today, but its a bit more cash. I don't think, in my opinion, that the 50mm macro has enough working distance for live bugs.

By the way, what are you going to shoot? Bugs? Or other stuff. This knowledge will help others answer better.

[Ogrt48]

I'm guessing things like bugs and butterflys when its season again. But random stuff for now. I found the 105 at 17th st photo for like $50 less than anywhere else so I might pick it up tomorrow if I can find my way there ... May I ask about the working distance with it ?

[DocFrankenstein]

Don't worry - the lenses are not going to go away anytime soon.

BTW: If you need 1:1, then the 50mm isn't for you. It's 1:2 as far as I know. 105 for bugs I'd even consider a bit short. If you can humanely do so, spring for 180mm f/3.5 Tamron which is 700 and you'll be extremely satisfied.

Cheers

[ScottE]

I have the Sigma 105 macro lens and have been very happy with it. It may not be your best bet for butterflies because these will often not let you get close enough to get frame filling shots with a 105 mm lens. For this purpose I often use extension tubes on my Sigma 50-500 lens. You could try extension tubes on your 70-300. This would let you get macro shots and be a lot cheaper than a new lens. Of course your 70-300 is nowhere near as sharp as the 105 mm macro lens.

Scott

[Ogrt48]

Theres no way I can get the 180mm. This lens and a flash is really pushing it already. :( I'm gonna give the 105mm a go, it has awesome reviews at fm from users too and searches on this forum are showing up great. Now I just can't decide which flash for around $150 =\

[Ogrt48]

Anyways, I just got home 30 minutes or so with the sigma 105 and omg I love this thing. I'm just screwing around with it in my room since its pouring outside but god this thing is great. Af is slow as hell but thats fine since mf is most likely better for macro anyways.

[DocFrankenstein]

Good for you

Have fun!

[Jon]

Any lens is at 1:1 with a total extension (including base length at infinity) of 2x the focal length (from sensor to rear nodal point), and the distance from the front nodal point to the subject will be 2x the focal length as well.

[Sajjad Yasin]

Any body in need of a good budget should choose between one the the followings
1. Sigma 105 mm 1:1 macro
2. Tamron 90 mm 1:1 macro

Choose either and you cannot go wrong... both of these lenses won editor's choice & user choice awards in Photography monthy magazine (Nov 2004)

[genewch]

If a medium focal length is adequate, I recommend Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. It's a good medium tele for portraits or closeups too. Super sharp images. You can't go wrong. For more economical (and probably more interesting) choice, an inverted ring adapter works.

[DocFrankenstein]

He bought the thing already, gene. ;)

[DavidEB]

kenko extension tubes will work fairly well with your 75-300. they cost about $100 US. if you upgrade that lens in the future to something better you can still use the tubes.

here are images using the tubes and a sigma 70-200.... >>>click here<<<< (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80205) and >>>click here<<< (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=94507)

It's hard to use a standard flash for macros because the short working distance means the lens shadows the subject. A flash bracket with an added metal bar can move the flash close to the front of the lens (that's how I did the spider shot). you'll also need an off-shoe cord.

enjoy...

[foxbat]

Consider a split focus screen (Haodo/Katz Eye) when funds permit. Macro demands highly accurate manual focusing.

[Bruce Watson]

Right now I have a DRebel, kit lens, 50 1.8 and the crappy canon 75-300............................................... ....................
I also need a flash and the canons don't look too hot for the cost so I was looking at the sigma Sigma EF-500 DG ST E-TTL Shoe Mount Flash for $150. The two lens above are $399 for the 105 and $269 for the 50mm.

I just really can't decide which lens because I dont know the working distance they each need. I can't have the bugs and stuff flying away :(

I have both; the Sigma 105 (bought it used from the POTN marketplace, thanks again Wolf!) and a couple of Sigma 500 Supers.

The lens is great; sharp and good value for the money, although the Canon may be incrementally better, but at a price.

The Sigma flash is great, but I have not used it for macro so cannot comment on the suitability, I have a Sigma ringflash for that purpose.

But I note that your post does not mention the Sigma Super model, you may want to spend the extra few dollars for that to have manual control.

Give them a try, both hold value fairly well so you can always trade up at a later date.