Macro Confusion

Hey guys, just wondering your suggestions about this..
I need a lense for taking photos of fish(less than 2ft long). I have a working distance of, at maximum, 5ft, and at minimum .5-1ft.
I'm torn between the Canon 100mm macro, the sigma 150mm macro, or the Canon 50mm macro.

Most would probably be done on a tripod, but the option needs to be available to handhold a few shots.

What do ya think?

If you're shooting the whole length of the 2-ft long fish, you won't need a macro lens for that. But, if what you really want to do is shoot a couple of picture of what's up his nostrils or maybe get a good full-frame image of one of the scales, then a macro lens is what you'd need.

I've never used a Sigma 150 so I can't comment on that but the Canon 100 macro should fit the bill very nicely for you. And with the 100mm focal length, you won't even need to get too close to the fish.

However, I should warn you that you may have a tough time getting the whole fish in the picture unless you really backed off a ways.

The max width of something (completely within the photo) from 5 feet away with a 100mm could not be anything wider than 1 foot using a camera with a 1.6 crop factor. If that is what you are using you would be better off going with a 50mm.

Alright, I'll go with the 50mm macro for the fish stuff and also get either the sigma 150 or the canon 100 in addition to it for other closeup pictures I plan on taking. Probably the 150, but I havn't been able to find many "user opinions." I've found very nice reviews for the canon 50mm and 100mm, but I don't think the differences in focal length would be enough to justify the purchase. The extra distance with the sigma would, however.

Don't you realize that you don't actually need the macro lens for shooting that fish... ?

From what you're describing, you'd be better off with 50mm f/1.8 than with a macro...

You need macro lens if you want to take a pic of a grasshopper or something.

Yes, but I'd like to get dual-use out of it as a macro and as a fish lense.
I guess I'll ask this. Would I get better quality pictures with the macro or the normal ( f/1.8 )?
If the normal 50mm, then I'll just get that and get a larger focal length macro for the other purpose instead of trying to do a 2-in-1 deal.

I take it your fish are 2 inches (5 cm), not feet (60 cm) if your minimum distance is likely to be 0.5 ft (15 cm). Also, I have never heard of a Sigma 150 mm macro lens. You probably mean either the 105 or 180 mm macro lens.

I have used a Sigma 105/2.8 EX macro lens. The sharpness is about the same as a Canon 100/2.8 macro. If I was choosing between these, I would choose the USM version of the Canon 100/2.8 because it is more solidly made, has the USM motor and has an accessory rotating tripod mount.

If cost is a consideration, you will be almost as happy with the Sigma 105 or a Tamron 90/2.5 macro lens. Both Sigma and Tamron have recently released digital versions of these lenses. Judging by pictures I have seen, all three brands have top notch optics.

I prefer a 100 (90 or 105) mm macro lens because there is more working distance between you and the subject than with a 50 mm and it is easier to manipulate any distracting backgrouds because of the narrower field of view.

If you were referring the the Sigma 180 mm macro lens, you should also consider the equally good Canon and Tamron 180 mm macro lenses. In this case Sigma has an HSM motor and Canon has USM. All three have rotating tripod mounts. Since I like to have full time manual over-ride I would choose between the Canon and Sigma. I would probably have my bank book updated first to help make the choice.

The 50mm f1.8 is an awesome little lens for $75 and faster than the 50 macro. The reviews I have read give them both the same optical score. The minimum focusing distance with the Sigma 150 macro is 15" which would give you some mighty good magnification.

The best of these for optical quality (which I imagine is what you will eventually want it for) is the Canon 100/macro.

For what you describe even a 50 will be trying hard to get a 2' long fish in the frame from 3-5'. Unless you only mean the nose to the tail TIGHT!

The Tamron 28-75 Di Macro would be better all around for your needs with the fish, and will allow a range of uses.

Maybe what he needs is a fisheye lens.

Sorry about that.

---Bob Gross---

Eeeehh.... is that a lens specially made to photograph fish eyes??

No - they use fishes' eyes instead of glass

:{)#

Ahh, I knew the fisheye jokes would come :P

Actually, the fish are from 1/4" to about 18" (I said 2ft for a little clearance). I'd like to be able to capture both on the same lense, but not totally necessary.

Questions about the Sigma 150mm macro: I did actually mean the 150mm macro. I havn't been able to find many reviews of it, but heard here and there about some people using it. Here's a link for the lense http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=352​422&is=USA

Also, I do have about a $1500 budget for macro lenses. Though I havn't seen any that costs that much

SonofDarwin,

I use a 50mm f1.8 lens - cheap and sharp as hell and use extension tubes with the same lens for Macro shots. A set of tubes for EOS from a third party supplier can be had for 100 Euros/Dollars and they contain L quality air!

I have had great results this way. The 13mm tube is the one I use most which roughly halves the minimum focusing distance. I also have a 21mm and 31mm, but these reduce the depth of field to almost zero.

Another bonus is the physical size. I have the 13mm always on the 50mm lens in my bag and it's still tiny and light.

I would recommend to get a 50mm and some tubes and try it before investing in a Macro lens.

Steve

If you want a "dual" purpose lens I would look REAL HARD at the 50mm 2.5 You can get it for under $250

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …s/lineup/macro/​index.html