-=TOP TEN=- Which macro lens do you use?

[JDUPhoto]

Originally Posted by Mount Airy Ed

Hi, I'm on a budget and would like to get both a zoom and macro lens in one. I see mostly fixed macro lenses used here. In a few posts, I've seen the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. What's your opinion of that lens? What are the zoom/macros that are better than that one?

Thanks!
Ed

Ed, you may be looking for an impossible combination. Many lenses claim to be macro, but don't come anywhere near 1:1 magnification. The lens you've asked about achieves no better than 1:2 and that's at a minimum focussing distance of 1.5m (59.1 inches). However, that magnification is a good deal better than you'll get from most zoom lenses, so may not be a bad option if 1:2 is macro enough for you. It would no doubt be a good choice for butterflies and other larger subjects.

[Lester Wareham]

Originally Posted by Mount Airy Ed

Hi, I'm on a budget and would like to get both a zoom and macro lens in one. I see mostly fixed macro lenses used here. In a few posts, I've seen the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. What's your opinion of that lens? What are the zoom/macros that are better than that one?

Thanks!
Ed

A lot of zooms have macro in the title and on the focus ring. This is really a marketting gimick and indicates some close focus capability.

A real macro lens will be specialy designed for very high resolution, low chromatic aberation and good flatness of field over a large magnification range. They can normally focus unaided to at least life size. Most modern macro lenses also perform well at conventional distances.

You can use zooms with tubes to get higher magnification but aparantly this introduces more chromatic aberation than one gets with a good prime. However some people have published pics with the kit lens etc that look very good on the web - I don't know how good they are if printed at A3 or larger.

If you are a budget get tubes and use tham with a good prime, if you don't have a good prime get the 50/1.8 if really stuck for cash.

[Carzee]

Nil.
No macro. Am I the only one without macro glass?

I plan on re-acquiring a Kiron 105 f2.8 if I see one.

[kwsanders]

The macro that I use is not on the list, so I thought I would mention it here. I have the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. It is half lifesize (1:2). I hope to purchase the 100mm f/2.8 macro in the near future.

[Reyno]

Tamron 90mm 2.8. Just got it today.

[35mm]

I have an extension ring. i can't afford a lense

[Bob Boner]

I use the Canon 180. I have used Minolta 50mm, Vivitar 90mm,Nikon 55, 105, and 200mm, and the Çanon 180. I like the 180 the best. I think it is one of the top two lenses Canon makes (300 f/2.8 is possibly as good). I highly recommend it.

[rgravel]

I just voted for the Canon 100, because I just ordered one from B&H moments ago

Can't wait to receive it

[dpastern]

Sigma 150mm Got it a few days ago, still getting used to it, it's a lot heavier than my 50mm/kenko tube setup - with my flash, flash bracket and 1D the whole lot is around 3kg I'd say. I swear the Sigma is heavier than both my Canon 70-200 f2.8 and 300mm f4 Excellent build quality and feel, and the optical quality is very very sharp, top notch. Sharper than my Canon 50mm f1.8, and that's a reasonably sharp lens I believe.

After having just spent 3-4 months getting my focusing technique down to pat with the 50mm/tubes combo I'm having to start all over again with the Sigma, most of my shots so far have been pretty disappointing from my end. I did get a few good shots of ants and a jumper yesterday though, haven't processed them yet

For those looking at a macro lens, and not wanting to cart around a heavy lens, go for the Canon 100mm as it's smaller and lighter and easier to handle than the Sigma 150mm (but no better in image quality).

The Sigma's AF isn't too bad at all - the HSM is silent, and it's pretty accurate. It's a tad too slow, but it'll only affect you if you're trying to use it for sports/action etc. Normal usage, the AF speed is fine.

Dave

edited: I failed to mention originally that the Sigma represents fantastic value for money, and the optical performance is every bit as good as the Canon 180mm f3.5L as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure some will disagree with me on that one

[benca1]

Originally Posted by dpastern

edited: I failed to mention originally that the Sigma represents fantastic value for money, and the optical performance is every bit as good as the Canon 180mm f3.5L as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure some will disagree with me on that one

The Canon 180mm L has some of the worst vignetting going for a macro lens and the saddest MTF numbers I've seen for a macro lens.

FWIW, the highest res lens, theoretically, is the Tamron 90mm which puts all others to shame with virtually no vignetting worth mentioning. Gaspingly sharp wide open. Following the same numbers the next sharpest Macro is the Sigma 105, the Canon 100, and the Sigma 150. The Canon 180 comes in dead last.

For the money, being that the 100mm Canon comes with nothing but a box and the Tamron comes with a 6 year warranty, pouch and hood, it seems sort of short sighted to pass it up for the Canon. Both being less then 500 dollars. (the Tamron is actually about 25 to 50 bucks cheaper). And the 10mm less focal length helps the Tamron better as a portrain lens for APC cameras.

For 350 bucks, it looks like the Sigma 105 is the best bargain going.

[madferrit]

Originally Posted by benca1

For 350 bucks, it looks like the Sigma 105 is the best bargain going.

I'm so glad you said that, i just purchased this lens from a fellow POTNer.. just can't wait to put it to use

[Sn@ve]

I only recently acquired the Canon 100mm f 2.8 and I love it. I am virtually certain that I'll end up with the 180mm version at some point in time. It is without a doubt my favorite lens and macro is my favorite genre of photography.

[mR_CaESaR]

im' a sigma 150mm user here, but i'm still learning the art of macro, i really would like to get some pics of flies and butterfiles like the ones i see on this forum, bloody amazing, but i have no idea how they are done.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Originally Posted by kwsanders

The macro that I use is not on the list, so I thought I would mention it here. I have the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. It is half lifesize (1:2). I hope to purchase the 100mm f/2.8 macro in the near future.

It really is on the list....

[dpastern]

Originally Posted by mR_CaESaR

im' a sigma 150mm user here, but i'm still learning the art of macro, i really would like to get some pics of flies and butterfiles like the ones i see on this forum, bloody amazing, but i have no idea how they are done.

Lots of practice my fellow Sydneyite The Sigma 150mm is a big lens though, it's heavy and solid. I'm getting a few good shots here and there, but it's a lot harder to hold steady than my old 50mm/tubes combo. That all said, the Sigma is a gem!

Dave