Tell me if this is an early signs of GAStritis.

I'm just starting to get into Macro photography. At the moment I have a few lens that I've been playing with (see GAS). I also bought a Kenko ext tube but none are macro dedicated. Of all items in my possession, it seems that my 70-200 f4 is the one I like the best.

I just want to ask for your opinion regarding the Sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF DL Hyperzoom Macro lens. I have an opportunity to get one for $100. What do you think of this lens and is $100 a fair price?

It might be a good price for the lens but it's not really a macro lens it only does 0.25:1 max mag as opposed to a prime macro lens of 1:1. The set of ext tubes on your 70-200 with it set at 70 will give you 1:1 mag
Brian v.

LordV wrote in post #16249340
It might be a good price for the lens but it's not really a macro lens it only does 0.25:1 max mag as opposed to a prime macro lens of 1:1. The set of ext tubes on your 70-200 with it set at 70 will give you 1:1 mag
Brian v.

Doh! that old-timers disease got me again. My brain got mixed up with another lens that I was looking at. I also found that it was for a Pentax mount
I really like using my 70-200mm but I get nervous about the lenght/weight when I add the tubes with it. So I thought I could replace it with something smaller in size. But for now I'll use my f4 and hopefully have something to contribute with you guys.

Thanks for the reply and my apologies for wasting your time.

I would pickup a 100mm classic (Canon EF 100mm f.28 Macro USM) if you can, you can take wonderful shots with that, infinity to life size and no messing with tubes.

Also the Tamron 90mm is very good, it really is worth investing in a macro lens if you want to get into the subject.

On the subject of tubes, I had problems with the Kenko ones (used to use them on my 300 f4L IS), after a few unscheduled lens dismounts I switched to the Canon ones which, for me, locked much more securely. They are a lot more expensive though.