Macro Lens Help

[45R]

I've narrowed down my choices of macro lenses and at this point I believe I have a little bit to learn about taking pictures of bugs.

I have narrowed my choice to either the Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro Lens or the Sigma 105mm Macro lens. I am leaning toward the Sigma because it has a more "tolerant" DOF with the bare lens. With a few close up adaptors both lenses are pretty awesome.

My first question is: What additional gear do I need if I want to be able to macro the face of something as small as an ant.

The second questions is: For those of you who have used both lenses. Which one should I go for. I'll probably use this lens for macro photography of cutlery as well.

Your input would be most helpful

Thanks for your time


45R

[tim]

I have the Canon 100mm on the way. I went with it because USM gives me full time manual which i'm told is great for macro work, and it also has the reputation of being an incredible sharp lens. I was also told a flash would be very helpful, so i've a 550EX in the same order. Another reason I went Canon is for the reputation of quality - the Tamron I have is great, but the Sigma 700-300 I just returned wasn't so hot.

[GPR1]

I have the Canon lens and love it. You would probably also want a set of extension tubes to take pictures of small bugs.

Greg

[Olegis]

I was debating (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43330) over the Canon, Sigma and Tamron macro lenses a few months ago, and in the end I went with the Canon - mainly because of the USM (fast, quiet and allows FTM focussing) and future compatibility. Have been very happy since :

http://www.pbase.com/olegis/image/35379232.jpg

I doubt that the 100mm lens will allow you to photograph so small objects as the ant face - you may need longer lens (150 or 180mm) with some extension tubes. The working distance of 100mm lens is quite short, so you may have a problem with some nervous bugs.

[tim]

As I understand it, the 100mm macro will let you take a photo of something 20mm across and fill the frame at 6 inches. Some skittish creatures would be scared away at that distance, sure, but surely ants and such would be ok?

It's suprising how fast an ant can run - easily fast enough to spoil your focus when you're using a narrow DOF.

[Rudix]

I am currently using the Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX macro and I love it. The only down side as far as I am concerned is the rather slow, non USM focus.

I have used it with many Canon D-SLR's with great effect, it is super sharp, sharper than the Canon 100mm (that I also own but seldom use these days) but that is a personal opinion as they are very close :)

Here is a sample taken with the Sigma lens, camera is a 1DSmk2 and flash a 580EX. The butterfly is only 12mm (1/2 inch) across but filled the frame. Settings were f20, 1/250 sec ISO 250

http://rudix.servepics.com/Nature/VO8D0082.jpg

[MDJAK]

I have the canon 100 2.8 macro. One thing I notice is that it is very slow focusing. And I'm not talking about macro mode. Used it out and about in Manhattan yesterday. Should have brought my 17-40 instead.

On the plus side, my other lens, which I love is the 70-200 2.8 IS. I recently bought the 1.4 teleconverter. And while this lens has been great for the high school sports I photograph as a hobby, the Canon 100 2.8 is the sharpest of them all.

[ron chappel]

Just curious-why should the sigma be more 'tollerant' with DOF? They should be identical...

To get greater magnification than the 1:1 (15x23mm on digital) the options are the same as for other non macro lenses
i.e close up extension tubes,close up adapter lenses,reverse adapters maybe


There is NO WAY the sigma is sharper than the canon!

That canon is stunningly sharp (i've owned one and heard countless similar comments from owners)
The sigma is good but doesn't come close to the canon(i've owned one,heard similar comments from most others ands this site shows pretty much how average the sigma is-
http://orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html
I guess that occasional examples of the sigma are much better.It's the only way the various comments make sense

[brunzie]

I've had both lenses and kept the Canon and sold the Sigma....Resale on the Canon is as good as it gets. I loved the Sigma when I had it but the Canon is a lens which you will never regret buying. Both are razor sharp and sharpness is not even a criteria for comaprison in my opinion. Poor focus and movement will effect sharpness a lot more than the inate sharpness of either. You can't go wrong with either but the Canon lens would be my choice.

[Olegis]

I have the canon 100 2.8 macro. One thing I notice is that it is very slow focusing. And I'm not talking about macro mode.

Slow focussing ? Mine is blasingly fast, not slower than my 70-200 f/2.8L. Maybe your lens AF switch was in the 1:1 to infinity position ? Try setting it to 0.3m to infinity when you're not using the lens for macro work.

[Nic]

I have the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens - together with the EF25 II, THE EF12 II extension tubes and the MT 24EX twin macro flash it is a formidable combination.

[45R]

Just curious-why should the sigma be more 'tollerant' with DOF? They should be identical...




I played with both lenses and they do not appear to be identical although this is purely subjective based on my eyes.. The Canon seems to have a very narrow DOF while the Sigma has a little more DOF to play with...granted this maybe due to its F/45 compared to the Canons F/32

Thanks for all of those who have responded

The good news is that I am going for the Canon 100mm Macro lens since it's only going to cost 70 dollars more.

Now the next silly question is what does the Extension do? Is it a multipier? And how many close up filters should suffice for macro work. :)

[EXA1a]

re. DOF: there is not a single lens in the world offering greater DOF than another at the same settings. That's physically impossible.
You want to use f32 or f45? Are you aware of the fact that diffraction in the aperture will cause visible "softness"/unsharpness from f11 upwards (if you use a 1.6x sensor)?

--Jerns--

[ron chappel]

The Canon seems to have a very narrow DOF while the Sigma has a little more DOF to play with...granted this maybe due to its F/45 compared to the Canons F/32

..... what does the Extension do? Is it a multipier? And how many close up filters should suffice for macro work. :)


Ah,yes
The sigma would indeed have more DOF if it stops down further than the canon.

Extending the lens away from the camera body (which is what extension tubes do) simply increases the magnification/makes the focus closer
You can try doing it with any lens -just hold a lens on the lensmount of the camera and move it slowly away further ferom the camera while pointing it at a subject that is very close.Youll have to juggle the various distances between camera and lens and lens and subject but you'll quickly work it out.
There is probably a formula for working out how much extension you need to get x amount of magnification but i don't know what it is.The manufacturer of extension tubes should be able to say easily

There definitely is a formula for working with close up lenses (close up filers/diopters)
I'll see if i can find it and get back

[MDJAK]

I did have it set as you suggest. I tried it again indoors just now. It was quite quick as you said, except when focusing on low contrast images in less than bright light; then it just hunts back and forth. I still feel it is a great lens though; I just wish it had IS, as I always see shake when looking through the viewfinder.

[Olegis]

Hunting is a function of both lens and AF system in the camera - sometimes the AF system can't decide where to focus due to lack of contrast, this behavior is normal for non-pro SLR bodies.