missed 150mm

So after diving today, I decided I wanted the sigma 150mm.
Went down to the store, was all ready ready to pay until I found out the sold the last 2 today!
The guy said he could probably get one in for me tomorrow. Now im wondering if i really want it.

My mp-e is nice and all. But some times I dont want 1:1, I want 1:.9
Not everything macro is the size of my 1dmkII sensor

Yes, you want it, you need it. Resistance is futile, my friend...Mwahahahaha!

[My avatar ain't no MTF for a zoom lens]

How is it as a tele lens? Fast enough for sports? Portraits? Bokey any good?
What about @ 210mm f/4?


p.s:, I should know better than to follow jojo's advice when it comes to Sigma glass
Sigma lover

CorruptedPhotographer wrote:
How is it as a tele lens? Fast enough for sports? Portraits? Bokey any good?
What about @ 210mm f/4? p.s:, I should know better than to follow jojo's advice when it comes to Sigma glass
Sigma lover

It of course gives you a FOV of 240mm on a 1.6 body, so take that into consideration. In terms of AF speed, not it isn't as fast as the 135L (being a Macro lens), but the focus-limit switch is very effective and with the ring HSM/FTM, it's about as fast as it gets for a dedicated Macro lens. The bokeh is top-class, IMO. It was as pleasing to me (and sometimes more pleasing in certain shots) as the 135L when I had them both for 2 weeks shooting thousands of frames. Here they are compared vis-a-vis bokeh:

http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5509091​6/original

As for "Sigma lover", I'll just say I love good glass, and if Sigma fits the bill, so be it. I now use the Tamron 2875 and can't wait for the new Tokina 1650f2.8.

jojo, I got 1 dmkII now..but I never stopped taking the crop into consideration a while ago.

As for the Sigma lover comment, that was a compliment! Im glad people over look the " if its not Canon its not worth it, - Same goes for if its not a Nokia, its not a mobile phone-.
I loved my bigma and 10-20, planning on gettin the 100-300f/4 or 120-300 f/2.8 soon. Still havent decided.

Those are two of Sigma's worst lenses

CorruptedPhotographer wrote:
My mp-e is nice and all. But some times I dont want 1:1, I want 1:.9
Not everything macro is the size of my 1dmkII sensor

... sorry to be thick, but I didn't understand this. What's the mp-e, and why does the sensor size affect the magnification? Surely it just gives a smaller FOV?

This is a link to a review of the MP-E 65 - it is a very specialised macro lens that will magnify up to 5 x lifesize

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

I can't comment on the effect of sensor size on magnification - macro is very new to me, I have just purchased a set of tubes and am still figuring them out...

pfogle, the mp-e is the Canon mp-e 65mm f/2.5 1-5x

This is a dedicated Macro lens with 5 times life siZe.
It does not focus beyond 1:1.

Anything larger than my sensor size will not be in focus.

will continue later, im late for work.

thanks, CP. The 150 sounds great, though my experience with the 50mm is, as fstopjojo reports, that it's terrific except against the light, when the IQ fall apart. I'm going to find a tele rubber hood and see if that helps. Apart from the flare, and the slightly clunky focusing (which, by the way, is excellent for manual focusing), it's a great lens. I guess the 150 will have a better lens hood.

ps note to fstopjojo - have you looked at the 105? They advertise it as having less flare, and after the loss of my 85/1.8 I'm looking at the 100-105mm options as well.

pfogle,

1:1, meaning true macro is when the subject covers 100% of your sensor. So whether you have 1 50mm macro, 105mm or 150/180mm macro.

At 1:1, the image size is the same, 1 to 1 ratio with your sensor.

The different focal lengths simply mean you get to be xxx amount away from the subject in order to achieve 1:1.

My mp-e is dedicated macro, anything further away from 1:1 is not focused. I cant use the lens as a normal 65mm lens. The 65mm is really misleading to the general public.
Its not a 65mm macro lens, its a macro lens at 65mm. The 65mm serves to state how far/close you will be from your subject at 1:1.

Its no different than say a mpe 140mm f/2 lens. The difference being, I can achieve 1:1 with the 140mm about 13cm further back than with the 65mm.

This is true. While magnificently sharp, the 50EX takes a hit when shooting in harsh lighting conditions and renders much more "hazy" images that say, for example, the Canon 50 f1.4, which held together better in exact conditions rendering strong tonalities and contrast. Stopping down the EX helps a lot. A lens hood will certainly be of help.

Phil, I've used the 105EX and it's very similar to the 50EX, just physically longer, bigger, with more WD. It's a fine lens, but both (along with the new 70EX Macro recently announced) have protruding focus barrels. This is one reason why I like the 150EX the best (with its non-extending barrel). You can't go wrong optically w/ any of these Macros