macro lenses

[handicap18]

check out these links from pixel-peeper.com

for the Canon 100mm f/2.8:
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=11

for the Canon 60mm f/2.8:
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=18

 

[Groucho]

FWIW, I've got a 55mm 1:1 macro and a 105mm 1:1 macro, and I've barely used the 55mm since getting the 105mm. 55mm (pretty similar in focal length on my 1.5x crop vs 60mm on your 1.6x crop) in full macro mode means that you're getting really, really close to your subject. Which can be good and bad...

I'm no flower expert, but like others, I'd lean towards the longer focal length...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Like others have said, let working distance be your guide. If you find that you are usually space constrained and need to be close to your subject, go with the 50mm. If you find that you need a little working space, go with the 100mm.

 

[Quicklabs]

I am really loving macro photography, but my 18-200 mm just won't cut it. Not sharp enough. (Examples below) The camera is a Nikon D80.

I'm trying to decide between the Tamron 90 mm, the Sigma 150 and the Sigma 105. I know the advantage of the 150 mm lets me keep a little further away from little critters that spook when I shove a big ole' lens at them. Yet, I'd also like to use the lens for portraits every so often....I'm thinking that the 90 or 105 might be a good "middle range" lens. All the lenses I've listed are well reviewed, and I know that I'm talking somewhat apples and oranges as I compare the merits of a 90 vs 150 mm.

Sooo--what do you think are the pros and cons of these choices? (I've already decided against the Nikkor 105--not sure the extra couple of hundred buys me that much better of a lens than the ones I've listed). And how much more detail am I going to be buying or 5 or 6 hundred bucks compared to what I'm getting now?

Thanks, everyone~

 

[Abby's Dad]

As I put together my wish list, a macro lens is right up towards the top for me also. I am between the Pentax 100 / 2.8 macro and and the Sigma 105/2.8. I am pretty sure that one of the members here recently got the Sigma and posted some awesome pictures (Yekcim?). The Sigmas seem to have great quality for the price, and the focal length gives me a good distance between camera and subject.

Fred

 

[YEKCIM]

Here are a couple from the Sigma 150/2.8:

Portrait:

Fast Tele, indoors:

A macro shot from this morning, using "garage" lighting:

This is the only macro lens I've ever owned so I can't offer much in the way of advice, compared to other available lenses. So far, though, I've been very pleased with the 150 as a versatile macro and fast medium tele.

~Ed

 

[jann1033]

i have a cheapo 100mm macro, it is soft so stinks for macro but i do like the length for a general lens so that's the length I'm planning on getting( canon) however in your case I'd get which ever is reviewed for the best sharpness and has the fastest speed. i have heard really good things about the tamron and personally i've had better success with tamron than sigma( have focus hunted like crazy) but that i am sure varies by lens and copy as well as i think some canon/sigma issues a while back

 

[Quicklabs]

Those are great shots! Did you hand hold those or use a tripod (especially the gorgeous shot of the recital)? The portrait is beautiful!
You've steered me well on the 50 mm 1.8, recommendation YEKCIM, and I see that you have the Sigma 10-20 on your list as well. That's also on my wish list. We seem to have similar tastes.

 

[YEKCIM]

Those are great shots! Did you hand hold those or use a tripod (especially the gorgeous shot of the recital)? The portrait is beautiful!
You've steered me well on the 50 mm 1.8, recommendation YEKCIM, and I see that you have the Sigma 10-20 on your list as well. That's also on my wish list. We seem to have similar tastes.

The flower shot was made using a tripod; the other two were hand-held. My main reason for buying the Sigma 150 was as a medium telephoto for just the kind of situation demonstrated by the recital. We were sitting on the very back row of the concert hall...probably 12-15 rows back from the stage. The shot was hand-held using D50 @ ISO 400, 1/100 sec, *wide open* (f/2.8). Here is the full shot, for comparison:

With the exception of the 150, my "kit" is unchanged from my initial acquisitions, except that I sold one of the original D50's several months ago, and replaced it with a D80. I'm pretty happy with what I have, given budgetary constraints, although the 70-300VR is probably my most-used lens. I'd eventually like to replace both bodies with a D300 or maybe whatever the D80 replacement eventually turns out to be. That's a long way off, though.

~Ed

 

[Suburbanmom]

My Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 is a macro lens and I am very happy with it. I know it's not one of the ones you have listed as a possibility, but I'm piping in because it's a Sigma. I use it for portraits as well as everyday photos and am very satisfied with it's performance. I would not hesitate to buy another Sigma if it had favorable reviews.

BTW...I like your macro butterflies. Did you take those at Sugarcreek Reserve?

 

[Abby's Dad]

Here are a couple from the Sigma 150/2.8:

Missed that yours was the 150/2.8, which isn't available in the Pentax mount , but I knew that it was a Sigma macro that you had gotten, were really impressed with, and had posted some awesome pictures taken with it. Now, if the 150/2.8 were available in the Pentax mount, I might have to put that on my list.

Fred

 

[Quicklabs]

BTW...I like your macro butterflies. Did you take those at Sugarcreek Reserve?

 

[Quicklabs]

I'm really loving macro photography, but the 18-200 just isn't cutting it.
I've read as many reviews as I can find and this looks like a pretty nice lens. Any other comments about it before I have to add another few months to my retirement date to support yet another expensive hobby? LOL

 

[YEKCIM]

I really like mine, although I got it more for a fast tele than macro. I have not been disappointed, although I'm still trying to get up to speed on macro technique.

Here are a few examples:

A really sharp piece of glass. No regrets at all.

~Y

 

[Quicklabs]

I knew you had one! We have pretty much the same tastes. Next on my wishlist is the Sigma 10-20. Do you feel that you are getting enough use out of yours with the 18-135?

 

[YEKCIM]

I knew you had one! We have pretty much the same tastes. Next on my wishlist is the Sigma 10-20. Do you feel that you are getting enough use out of yours with the 18-135?

No; my 10-20 is far and away my least-used and least-needed lens. The overriding reason I bought it was that I am the (unpaid) "official" photographer at my company's annual meeting and *had* to have something in the 16mm range for group photos. 18mm is just not quite wide enough. Except for that once-a-year need, the lens pretty much just sits in my bag.

I *did* use it on our recent Blue Ridge Parkway trip with some success. Here are a couple shots from the D-Day Memorial in Bedford, VA:

I am of the opinion that using ultrawides requires a different "technique" and I have not yet broken the code on that technique (and probably never will). For the vast majority of what I do, 18mm is plenty wide and, of course, the 18-135 is super-sharp. That said, I think the 10-20 is a good lens. I have seen plenty of stunning photos made with one, even if mine are mediocre, at best.

~Ed

 

[Quicklabs]

Nice shots there! It looks like a really sharp lens as well. From the look of those Blue Ridge parkway shots, I'd say you've got a pretty good handle on cracking that code.
Ed, on that incredible picture of the recital, what kind of special lighting are you using? Did you use a teleconverter as well to get that? You've shown that picture before and it's one of my very favoriites. Mind sharing the exif?
I'll be interested to see what the 150 will do at our indoor agility trials. Need something fast. I heard the focus is kind of slow, but if we pre-focus on the equipment, it might help.
Thanks for your help--I'm off to work now! Someone's gotta pay for this stuff! LOL

 

[YEKCIM]

Nice shots there! It looks like a really sharp lens as well. From the look of those Blue Ridge parkway shots, I'd say you've got a pretty good handle on cracking that code.
Ed, on that incredible picture of the recital, what kind of special lighting are you using? Did you use a teleconverter as well to get that? You've shown that picture before and it's one of my very favoriites. Mind sharing the exif?
I'll be interested to see what the 150 will do at our indoor agility trials. Need something fast. I heard the focus is kind of slow, but if we pre-focus on the equipment, it might help.
Thanks for your help--I'm off to work now! Someone's gotta pay for this stuff! LOL

Here's the EXIF:

D50 @ ISO 400
1/100 sec handheld
f/2.8 (wide open)
Center Weighted Average Metering Mode
Auto WB
Aperture Preferred Auto exposure

Lighting was just their normal stage lighting. I shot RAW and converted in PSE5 using ACR, correcting WB and exposure along the way.

For comparison, here is the uncropped image:

And, again, the cropped image:

This is *exactly* the kind of situation I wanted the 150 for. I really would have liked the 70-200VR but, for a third the cost, I'm quite happy with the Sigma, and also like the fact that it is truly a dual purpose lens.

As far as "action" shooting, I would not recommend it. I tried using it at my daughter's soccer tryouts a few days ago and, while I did get some good, sharp, in-focus shots, the majority were soft due, I think, to the (relatively) slow focus tracking on the D80. If, however, you were able to pre-focus in manual, it might do just fine. It is probably the sharpest lens in my bag (including the 50/1.8) according to the MTF chart, and my personal experience. The optimum aperture is f/5.6, but the dropoff at f/2.8 is minimal.

~Ed

 

[Groucho]

The only thing that I'd add is that 150mm is a pretty long lens... I'd make sure that you really need/want that kind of focal length. I've got 55mm and 105mm 1:1 macros and mainly use the 105mm (mostly because the 55mm requires an adapter), I don't think I'd use the 150mm too much unless I was doing a lot of bug photography or was using it as a fast tele like YEKCIM does.

If the focal length fits, macros are usually pretty amazingly sharp across the board...

 

[Quicklabs]

Visited a butterfly house today--no better place to practice. Thanks to everyone who helped me this week. I was ready to send it back, but your recommendation confirmed it was operator error. I guess this lens is a keeper.

Isn't he cute?

This baby monarch is less than 30 minutes old.

Kinda grainy--lots of crop and totally screwed up the ISO. I don't need to shoot at 1/2500 second!

Not a butterfly! LOL-- Look deeply in my eyes!

With my 18-200 (no time to change lenses--these guys are fast!)