What macro lens do you suggest, 2 I am thinking of?

[JDM EG6]

I belive this is my first post but Ive been a long time reader and long time shooter. I have a 300d with hack, canon 1.8 50mm, sigma 70-200 2.8, sigma 24-60 2.8 and a russian fish eye.

S the 2 lens in question are both Sigma as I have had nothing but love for their quality, build, price and overall pictures vs any canon lens tested and used.

sigma 50mm 2.8 macro or 105mm 2.8 macro....?????

I want to be able to get CLOSE UP SHOTS of flowers, insects, and esp people's eye's and what not.

I try hard now with my 24-70 but it doesnt get close at all, either does mt 70-200 (haha). They just arnt designed to work close.

So what do you recommend and if any of you have pics of/with either on a humans eye.


thank you all.

kenny

[nitsch]

Hey Kenny - welcome to the forum!

I have the Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG which I use in conjunction with the 300D and I love it. Strangely enough, I also happen to have a pic of my eye taken with it! Its not taken at full 1:1 magnification, probably more like 1:2 but I hope it is of some use to you anyway.

http://www.nitsch.co.uk/photos/eye.jpg


And a 100% crop from the above:

http://www.nitsch.co.uk/photos/eye100crop.jpg

[JDM EG6]

thank you for the reply. Now after a god hour of reading i see that sigma has a new 150mm macro so please add that to my list above or any recommendation at the same time.

thanks!

[Dante King]

Nitsch, do you wear contacts?

[JDM EG6]

Nitsch, do you wear contacts?

Sorry but that doesnt help my situation at all :S

:P

kenny

[tim]

All the macro lenses have great reputations for sharpness, you'll have to consider other factors, like ease of manual focusing (which you do most of the time for macro), price, build quality, etc. Have a read of reviews here (http://www.photographyreview.com/Lenses/PSC_3787crx.aspx) and on http://fredmiranda.com.

As an aside, I wear contacts, I do have a photo somewhere where you can clearly see the contact lens on my eye :)

[mgash]

the eye picture is freaky. Get the 105. THe extra lenght is always a good thing

[tim]

the eye picture is freaky. Get the 105. THe extra lenght is always a good thing

5mm isn't worth even considering as an advantage over 100mm. Maybe over the 90mm it would make a difference, but it'd be small.

[nitsch]

Nitsch, do you wear contacts?

LOL! No, why?

[ron chappel]

Hi Kenny
All of those sigma models are good high quality lenses (just make sure you get the latest DG version if you buy the 105mm) which all focus down to 1:1 ratio.
So you can safely decide based on other factors such as working distance and/or other uses you may have for the lens
The 50mm macro at closest focus gives only about 7cm between the front of the lens and the subject.The 105mm gives about 14cm and the 150mm lens about 23cm (all estimates based on the specs)
The 50mm lens would also be usefull as a portrait lens and quite possibly the 105mm as well.

Of course buying a specialist macro lens is not the only option - you can also buy extension tubes or add-on closup lenses for your existing lenses to get a similar macro effect at much less expense.

[V6GTO]

Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/V6GTO/InYerFace.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/V6GTO/Fauna/Beecomp.jpg

HTH, Martin.