Delimma difference Sigma 105Macro EX Tamron 90Macro

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

I want to buy a perfect macro lens for my 10D, and I decided to get the Sigma 105EX Macro but I found out the Tamron is just as good and over here € 110,00 cheaper.

I have a few questions.

My current lens will focus from 19" away the macro's from 11" away, that's not really shocking in difference.

The factor however is different 1:5 to 1:1, could someone please explain what to expect from such a macro lens ?

1:1 is real life the salesperson told me (over the phone), but when I look through my 28-105Sigma 2.8/4.5 I also see what I capture ???

I'm a bit stunned at the moment, please assist me.

Greetings,
Frank

[photography By Evangelos]

I am not sure, as I am new to Macro photography. I do lots of weddings and portraits and special events. I did how ever just buy this lens on ebay with a 4 year USA warranty for $279.00 and $10.00 for shipping. This lens is tack sharp and is wonderful. I am not big on sigmas and love this one. The A/F is not as fast as my canon 50mm macro but it is much sharper by far. You really do not need fast A/F for macro work so it is ok for me. Buy it and you will love it. This is coming form some one who doesn’t like sigma that much so its gota be good.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I haven't been able to understand the 1:1 lifesize terminology either,. it makes no sense! If a picture of a weeny ant is only 1:1 (or life size) then in my mind the picture will only be as large as the ant itself,.

...which we have allready established as "weenie"

So any photo is magnifying the ant beyond "life size"


That said,. I know that to get those amazing close ups,. you do want a 1:1 lens or as close to it as possible.

the next thing you want to look into is the distance at which the macro gives you that 1;1 ratio. The farther from the subject that you can get a 1:1 the better in many ways as it helps you to take the photo without having to stuff a great big lens down the ants throat.

Hope this helps.

[mattchase]

I can't speak about the two lenses in questions since I have neither, but can give a short description of macro.

What 1:1 means is that the subject will take up the same amount of space on the sensor (or film) as it would in real life, in relationship to the size of the sensor. So if you have a 22mm x 15mm sensor (the 10D), and you take a picture of a moderately sized Wolf spider (say 20mm in size), the spider would take up 20mm of the 22mm sensor, or about 90%. Yes, this would make it appear larger than life on screen and in print, which is one of the draws of macro work. But keep in mind that the term "life size" for your subject is in direct relationship to the size of the sensor (or film), so the 1:1 "life size" just means the subject takes up the same amount of room on the sensor as it does in real life.

I am the first to admit math is a weak spot for me, but here is my understanding of this from a mathmatical standpoint. If I did the math wrong, feel free to correct me (please!). Your 1:5 lens means you can only capture on your sensor a subject at about 20% of it's actual size, versus 100% of it's actual size at 1:1. When looking at the numbers 1:5 and 1:1, it doesn't look like much of a difference, but those numbers are multiples apart from each other. Going from 1:1 (100%) to 1:2 cuts your size in half to 50%, 1:4 is 25%, etc, etc. So while a lens that claims to do macro down to say 1:3 is pretty good, it is still a ways off from 1:1 "life size" macro work.

Did that make sense, or just confuse you more?

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

No it makes sense.
But what with the 1.6 multiplyer factor of the 10D ?

Will that mean it will be even bigger :).

I'm really into a dillema, I could always mount my 70-210 f2.8 and zoom into the object from 50cm away.

Anyway I dediced to drive to the dealer this afternoon and just take the test.

Greetings,
Frank

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I bought the Tamron.
The difference is HUGE between a normal focussing on the 28-105 and the Macro lens :D.
I nearly fell from my chair.

I will post some shots very soon.

Greetings,
Frank

[openspace]

1:1 or lifesize means what you shoot will be lifesize on the negative, which means when you blow it up to 8x12, your subject will be huge.

Pluse prime macros are extremely sharp. Even when blown up to 8x12 or larger, the detail is intensely sharp. You can see the hairs on a bee's legs or the pollen grains on the flower's anther.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Correct.
See my posting in this board of the first test shot.
On the web it looks BAD, but on my monitor it's JAW dropping.

Greetings,
Frank

[hurry]

Look samples with my SIGMA 105

http://www.pbase.com/cool_hot

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

NICE.
I think the Tamron and Sigma are both best buys.
I bought the Tamron because it was claimed to have a bit better contrast and sharpness while the Sigma was build a bit better.
The sales person (VERY well informed) also claimed that they couln't keep the two apart even if they tried, the test was all labaratory talk.

I know for sure I'm glad I did not buy the canon for 3x the money, because THAT difference is seen, although you have to push real hard, you can see a bit less contrast and sharpness (again according to the salesman and the test in focus).

Greetings,
Frank