Sigma 50mm EX f2.8 Macro Lens

[JZaun]

After hours of researching here is my findings and the reasoning I bought the Sigma.

Canon 100mmUSM f2.8 - 1:1 macro $470
Canon 50mm USM f2.5 - 1:2 macro $240 but needs an adapter to get 1:1 macro. Couldn't find the adapter or cost.
Sigma 50mm EX f2.8 - 1:1 macro $249

I currently have a 100-300mm and a 24-85mm so I felt that I had the 100mm range covered. I also had the 50mm range covered but at f3.5.The above macro's were at 2.5 or 2.8 so any would give me 1 stop better light. Not knowing what the cost of the canon adapter for the 50mm and the fact that it needed something else to get 1:1 put it out of the running. It may have had better build quality than the sigma but it still didn't fit my need. That left the canon 100mm f2.8 and the Sigma 50mm F2.5. Both do 1:1 but the 100mm had a min focus distance of 12" as opposed to Sigma at 7" . The canon was probably the better lens but 2X the cost. Both got excellent reviews. I wanted a 50mm anyway and I wanted a Canon f1.8 but could this lens fit both needs at least for a while? It was worth the try to me.. So here is my 5 th pic. Taken of a 1/2" across blue Crocus.


http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/1633Blue-Macro-2-Web-med.jpg


JZaun

[mr_clean001]

Nice shot and great testament to the Sigma lense. You have made me start to re-evaluate my macro lense decision. Thanks for the input.

[CyberDyneSystems]

This is beautifull...

[PacAce]

I have that lens, too, but have only used it for copy work. From the looks of your picture, it seems to do a good job with the subject but I'm a little disappointed with the bokeh of that lens. I guess I can't really complain since I got that lens primary for copy work.

[karusel]

Does anyone have Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro? I'd like to know what you think of it...

[TimNYC]

Jerry, this is a fabulous photo. Well done. I own the Sigma 180mm macro. The reason I bought that lens vs the Canon 180 or 100mm was price/performance. The reason I like the longer macros is proven by your photo, the 50mm has such a wide angle of view, it rarely seperates the subject from the background.

[Scottes]

Does anyone have Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro? I'd like to know what you think of it...

I have one. Optically it's very good, maybe very very good. Nice bokeh I thought. Bump this message tomorrow and I'll take a post something.

Also, it seems very well made, feels good, smooth. Nice EX finish, comes iwth a lens hood.

Things I hate about this lens:

The AF is v e r y s l o w. IMHO, AF on this lens is almost useless. Maybe I'm just too used to my Canon L lenses, though. But it does like to hunt - all the way to infinity, all the way back and then again and I get PO'd and set it to manual and go.

The glass is VERY recessed from the front of the "housing". So you put the front of the lens 9" away from something and the front of the glass element is 11.5" from it. Just seems very strange to me.

[JZaun]

My first pic was not 1:1 so here is another. TimNYC brought up the field of view so I wanted to show what it is at 1:1. Now I do not have a proper support for the camera or proper lighting but it will show the field of view.
This is hand held with 2 lamps for light.

IT WAS NOT CROPED

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/1633Dime-med.jpg

[Scottes]

Why can't I see these images? Everything JZaun posts comes up as a blank box, at home and at work. If I click on the image (blank box) I get BytePhoto's main page. I'm not Internet dummy, but I'm stumped.