Lens + Macro Question

[Ram43]

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro EX DG HSM?? I am looking to buy a macro lens (with 1:1 capability)...the canon 100 f/2.8 macro would be the logical choice for me if I didn't already have the 85 f/1.8. I feel that 85mm and 100mm are too close in focal length for me and I don't want a lens to be used solely for macro (trying to get the most out of my money...as most people are.)

Also, could someone please help me out with macro working distances? When a macro lens is said to have a certain working distance, for example 15mm, does that mean that 15 mm is the maximum, minimum, or only distance in which 1:1 magnification can be achieved??

Any comments will be greatly appreciated.

[gasrocks]

OK, you want to keep the 85/1.8. Get some extension tubes and maybe even a 250D, 500D close-up lens for it = you are doing some quality macro!

[Jarrad]

I don't have any experience with the sigma lens, sorry. :(


Assuming that the lens' greatest magnification capability is 1:1 then, yes, the X" minimum focal distance is the closest (in actual distance) you can focus on and will result in 1:1 magnification.

I could be wrong, but It's my understanding that it's the Distance from the film/sensor, not the front element of the lens.

So, if you have a 15" minimum focal distance and the lens is 5.4" long you can focus as close as 9.6" from the front of the lens, but 15" from the front of the film/sensor. I hope that made sense.

I Have a 100mm Macro lens and I'm comfortable with it's working distance (12" sensor, 7.3" front element). I'd gladly take more working distance, but it's not necessary. Most of my 1:1 work is done on a tripod anyway. I wish Canon would put IS on their Macro lenses. :cool:

Good luck :)

[J Rabin]

I've used all these lenses. They are all brutally sharp. The new Sigma 150mm f/2.8 is very good, if it fits your needs. Here's the way to think about working distance when these lenses are focused at full 1:1 magnification:

60mm Canon = 10 cm working distance @ $450
100mm Canon = 15 cm working distance @ $480
150mm Sigma = 20 cm working distance @ $600
180 Canon = 25 cm working distance @ $1,300

You only pay $30 to add 5 cm of working distance from Canon's 60 to 100mm macro lenses. Unless you need the 60mm for a specific use (I do at work), the 100mm Canon macro is a best all 'round value in working distance and flexible use for most people.

To step up, you pay another $120 for the 2nd 5cm gained from the Canon 100mm to the Sigma 150mm. This, and the fact the Sigma comes with a hood, tripod mount, HSM auto focus, with full-time manual over ride. (I shut off auto foucs and manual focus much of the time with macro lenses.) makes it an interesting middle contender.

Step up on more time, and you pay an additional $700 for the next 5 cm working distance between the Sigma and the Canon 180mm. This is an amaazing optic, almost no diffraction even when stopped down to f/32! Ultimate in working distance.

What is working distance? Working distance is the distance from the front of lens element to the subject when the lenses are focuused at their closest focus 1:1 magnification. The lenses all focus continuously to infinity also, but we are only calculating close focus distance.

Calculate Working Distance to subject =
published close focus spec for lens - lens length - distance between rear element and sensor or film plane (which is 4.4 cm for Canon EOS cameras.

Working distance is a BIG limiting use factor (in addition to the full 2 f/stops of light loss @ 1:1 magnification), so get as much as you can afford.

Hope that helps. J

[Jarrad]

almost no diffraction even when stopped down to f/32!


Are you serious?

Would you happen to have an example of a reasonably sharp 1:1 @ f32?

or even f/22?

I can't really tell a drop off on my 100mm untill after f/16, but soon after the drop off is steep.

I may just have to get one of those 180mm lenses.

Thanks for all the info :)

[J Rabin]

Jarred.
Quite serious. I won't say "no," especially in age of pixel peeping versus slides, but less than any other macro lens I've used stopped beyond f/18-f/22. It's the rare time I get enough light for those stops because I don't live in FL or CA!
Home now, not work, so no pics. I have the 100mm and the new 60mm EF-S for handheld field use. A colleague has the Canon (I mean "Cannon") 180mm macro. It's just flat out amazing tripod mounted. Not better pictures than the 100mm. Just easier to use, and get a shot when you really need it. His 180mm lens amazes me its lack of flaw and useabillity. J

[Ram43]

Thanks Jarrad and Rabin for clearing up that working distance thing for me...I think.

I didn't really consider extension tubes before...will that still produce 1:1 mag with good quality on the 85 f/1.8? Does the 100 f/2.8 perform as well or better than the 85 as short telephoto?? I know it will ultimatly come down to what I think my needs are...but at this point I may just sell my 85 f/1.8 (I have a friend who wants it anyway) and get the 100 f/2.8 for about the same price as the 85 + tubes, I think.

[J Rabin]

Ram. Yikes.
If you have a good 85mm f/1.8, don't trade it for a 100mm macro! Two different tools.
Sure you CAN DO portraits with the 100mm macro, it's a great lens, but sometimes it's SO sharp, every pore, every pimple, every skin pore looks like moon craters. You'll spend too much time in Photoshop making them LESS sharp and more flattering. The 85 f/1.8 was designed as a head & shoulders lens.

If "casual close-up" is what you want to do, not macro, get a used older Canon 50mm macro f/2.5. It only gets half life size, and has a moving barrel, but it does very nice macro, and portraits. Small, fits in a bag. Cheap. Better than the "tubes" will ever get you. With the tubes, you lose light, you lose infinity focus. J

[digitaltourist]

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro EX DG HSM?? I am looking to buy a macro lens (with 1:1 capability)...the canon 100 f/2.8 macro would be the logical choice for me if I didn't already have the 85 f/1.8. I feel that 85mm and 100mm are too close in focal length for me and I don't want a lens to be used solely for macro (trying to get the most out of my money...as most people are.)

Also, could someone please help me out with macro working distances? When a macro lens is said to have a certain working distance, for example 15mm, does that mean that 15 mm is the maximum, minimum, or only distance in which 1:1 magnification can be achieved??

Any comments will be greatly appreciated.

I have the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro DG HSM and can recommend it highly. It is a fantastic value (I bought mine from Delta International for $534.00 delivered) and comes with a tripod ring (you will want one for those portrati macro shots), lens hood, and case.

The build quality is top notch and it is razor sharp. The extra working distance over the 100mm makes it more usable. Its relative compact size, compared to the 180mm, make it easier to carry around and the f/2.8 is a benefit as well.

I have only one macro picture online at the moment.

http://www.pbase.com/10dgroup/image/42412579

[Naytwan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/Macro/e8c1166f.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/Macro/96271301.jpg

I took those two with the 150. I need to play with it more, but I'm really liking it so far.

[Ram43]

Digitaltourist & Naytwan Thanks for your replies regarding the sigma 150 macro . This lens is of high interest to me. Have you either of you two used this lens for sports or wildlife type photos

[Jon]

"Working distance" is one of those lovely terms that means whatever the user wants it to. Strictly speaking, it should be the distance from the front of the lens to the subject (how much distance you've got to work with), but you'll commonly see manufacturers quote the sensor-subject distance. This happens because the focus markings on lenses don't consider the lens extension as you focus on closer-in objects (total lens length at 1:1 is twice the lens focal length). But however they measure it, it's how close you're going to have to get to your subject at closest focus (whatever that may be for a given lens).

As for the 150 for wildlife - you'll likely find it to be on the short side.

[Naytwan]

Digitaltourist & Naytwan Thanks for your replies regarding the sigma 150 macro . This lens is of high interest to me. Have you either of you two used this lens for sports or wildlife type photos

Haven't had that oppurtunity yet. I have taken "test" shots of some birds in my hood that I didn't save. What I saw looked pretty nice.