sigma 150 macro for everyday use?

It seems that this lense can be used to take rather good all around pictures. The only problem being slow autofocus. As my understanding goes with macro, all macro lenses take crystal clear shots but the mm size allows for how far away you can be from the subject when going for a 1:1 ratio. Of course even with 150mm macro you still need to be within a foot of the object. Now my thinking is this, since I already have a 85mm f/1.8 prime I probably wouldnt want a 100mm macro since it is so close to range as the 85mm. So would the 150mm be a better choice as I could also use it as a prime for everyday pictures (excluding sports)? Or would it be a good idea to save a bunch of money and go for something like a 50 or 60?

Feel free to correct me if I have understood these lenses improperly

Getting the 60mm macro instead of the 150mm would save you about $100 on the used market. If you take pictures of flowers, jewelry, coins, or other things that don't run away, the 60mm is a fine lens, very sharp and high quality. If you want to take pictures of bugs or other creepy crawlies that tend to be shy, the 150mm will be worth the extra in my opinion.

As far as using the 150mm as an everyday prime, I do it occasionally. It performs pretty well when used with the focus limiter switch. High image quality and f/2.8 make for a nice lens for long range candids. The following is with my 150mm:

Canon 100 macro has a faster AF, this is very useful in other non macro shots.

and thats what I think the selling point would be for me, being able to use it as a prime/ everyday lense. If this isnt a problem then this might be just a really good lense for me. It will give me some extra reach (85mm being my current highest) and I could do macro. It seems like a win win situation.

lukeap69 wrote in post #6416482
Canon 100 macro has a faster AF, this is very useful in other non macro shots.

I probably wouldnt use the 100mm macro anyways when I could use the 85mm 1.8 for everyday shots . I dont think the 15mm would be that important. So either way I would prefer to stay away from the 85mm range. Thats the main reason I didnt mention the 100mm as it seems to also be a great lense.

The Sigma 150 autofocus is plenty fast. The only problem is if you're going through from very very close distances to infinity. If you are focusing at normal distances, it's plenty fast. The Sigma 150 is phenomenal wide open from macro to about 10-15 feet. (it's optimized for close up). Beyond 10-15 feet, it's a good idea to stop down to f/4 or f/5.6 for peak sharpness.

150mm is very long for any sort of "everyday" use on a crop camera. I find 100mm long for that (say if I'm taking macros and have the lens on and want to do some pictures of kids/dogs or whatever). In my opinion 60mm on a crop is the best macro length for "non-macro" use.

lungdoc wrote in post #6416557
150mm is very long for any sort of "everyday" use on a crop camera. I find 100mm long for that (say if I'm taking macros and have the lens on and want to do some pictures of kids/dogs or whatever). In my opinion 60mm on a crop is the best macro length for "non-macro" use.

The OP already has 60mm f/2.8 covered with his sigma 24-70. I think he's looking for a new focal length to use in addition to macro capabilities.

I don't find 150mm long when I need 150mm. I recently used the 150 at an outdoor picnic and found the extra distance to be very nice for capturing moments without intruding upon them.

Fair enough, but I guess it depends on whether he's asking if it's a decent general purpose focal length (I'd say no) or usable as a 150mm prime (definitely). Having a 24-70 doesn't make the 150mm any more useful or the 60mm any more redundant if you happen to be out without that other lens with you or don't have time to change.

No argument here - I don't subscribe to the idea that having two lenses in the same focal length range is a bad thing. It just seemed that the OP wanted to avoid any overlap based on his comments on the 100mm macro not being in the running because he has an 85mm 1.8.

elitejp wrote in post #6416335
Now my thinking is this, since I already have a 85mm f/1.8 prime I probably wouldnt want a 100mm macro since it is so close to range as the 85mm.

As far as other non-macro usage goes, I hear what you are saying about general use, but my opinion is - if you are buying a macro lens, your main use will be... macro. So start by figuring out what you want to photograph and then picking the appropriate lens for that.

The 100mm is a good generalist macro lens, and covers a wide variety of subjects.
The 50mm is a very versatile lens - will work very well for still-life macro and also doubles as a handy general lens; however, for bugs and other live subjects, it is not a very practical lens
The 150-180mm lenses are great for bugs - but they are heavy and awkward to use handheld - while it is doable, it takes a fair amount of practice.

Personally, I find a 150-180mm prime to be as useful as t*ts on a bull for general photography; and in your shoes, the 100mm doesnt add anything for general photography compared to the 85. The 50mm is the most flexible of the lot for general shooting, but the least flexible for macro.

My suggestion is - If you just plan to try your hand at macro initially, just buy some extension tubes and use them until you figure out what sort of subjects interest you. Then buy a macro lens for macro.

Here's a shot with the 180mm macro. Would not have been possible with any other macro lens. That alone makes it worth dealing with the other limitations:

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script