macro lenses

After more research I've narrowed it down to the Canon 100 and the Sigma 150. My only question is, with the Canon's focusing distance at 5.9", but the sigma is 15" (but 150mm). Does the 150mm make that much of a difference to make up the extra 10"?

Does anyone have any side by side comparisons of the same subject with these two lenses at their closest focusing distance? I'd love to see the side by side comparison.

Thanks,

it sure does... it means you can stay 9" farther away from the bugs and still get 1:1. your less likely to scare the bugs away at a farther distance...

cgratti wrote in post #2037899
it sure does... it means you can stay 9" farther away from the bugs and still get 1:1. your less likely to scare the bugs away at a farther distance...

But what about the magnification from the extra distance? Which one's going to give you the closer shot? Or am I not understanding the whole 1:1 ratio thing?

I have the sigma 105mm and love it so far.

Here's a shot (not mine) of a butterfly using a 180L -- http://www.photosig.co​m …id=1725622&forw​ard=browse

Here's a shot (again, not mine) of a dandelion and an insect with the Sigma 150 macro -- http://www.photosig.co​m …id=1756266&forw​ard=browse

I'd say either one, in the right hands, could work magic. Good luck.

I bought the canon 100 macro 2.8 USM when I bought my Rebel XT last summer. It is amazingly sharp. I just love it.

I have no comparison shoots...But here are two with the canon...handheld...ind​oors...

Margie

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thanks for the shots. Man.... this isn't easy. I think I'll go out and rent both and go from there. Might cost a little, but I'll be able to collect the data I'm looking for. Those are some amazing shots you posted. WOW.. decisions, decisions.....

cinci-photo wrote in post #2037945
But what about the magnification from the extra distance? Which one's going to give you the closer shot? Or am I not understanding the whole 1:1 ratio thing?

The longer focal length of the Sigma 150 mm (vs. say the Canon 100 mm) only buys you some extra working distance. Both lenses are capable of 1:1 magnification.

Thanks Jamey...
Here are a few more...also handheld, indoors with the canon...

Margie

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

This one is not a macro...but also taken with the canon 100...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Here are a couple taken handheld with the Canon 100mm lens:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

cinci-photo wrote in post #2031814
I've always loved macro photography, but haven't had a macro lens since I got rid of my film camera. There are some amazing shots in the macro section. I'ved noticed a lot of the better shots, that the sigma 150, Sigma 105ex and the Canon MP E65 are in the gear list.

What would you suggest as a first macro lens. Input and suggestions extremely appreciated.

Thanks,

Jamey

Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro USM. Light reasonably compact, sharp, internal focus so does not extend as focussed, doubles as a good telephoto with USM focus and focus limiter switch. If you have the 20D or 30D you can use the lens to life size with the internal flash sans hood.

Downsides: Has a very big hood which you have to get as an extra, I often for closeup work use the hood for the EF-S 60mm that is much shorter.

Can take a tripod ring but again is an extra (if you also got the MP-E you get the same ring with that, so it becomes free but you also need a little inexpensive plastic adaptor ring).

BTW: If you want a macro flash I can recommend the expensive but very flexible MT-24EX twin light, works very well with the 100mm and the MP-E 65mm. One of the nicest things about this are the modelling lights that you can turn on with a double tap of the shutter button. Sounds trivial but it is a life saver with the MP-E at higher magnification.

cinci-photo wrote in post #2037945
But what about the magnification from the extra distance? Which one's going to give you the closer shot? Or am I not understanding the whole 1:1 ratio thing?

The both give the same framing. Macro magnification is expressed as the ratio of the size of the object on the sensor (or film) to the size of the object. So for an APS-C camera and a 22mm long catapiler say:

1:2 or 0.5: Image on sensor is half length of actual object. Catapiler fills half of frame length.
1:1 or 1.0: Image on sensor is same size as object. Catapiler fills all of frame length.

2:1 or 2.0: Image on sensor is twice size of object. Half of the catapiler fits in the frame length.

I would mention that focusing distance referes to the distance from the FILM plane to the subject. A 150 macro lens altho having a longer focus distance than a 100mm lens, may not result in a significant increase in "working distance" (distance from end of hood to subject). This may not matter to the photographer taking pictures of inanimate objects but would to somebody purchasing a longer lens to avoid scaring an insect by getting too close. It is annoying that manufacturers do not state this in their literature.

I would have to suggest the Canon 100mm USM also, but if price is a factor, the Tamron 90mm macro actually edges out the canon in sharpness. Her is a shot with the 90mm Tamron, although not really a macro shot, it gives some idea of sharpness.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.