macro lenses

[Pea-n-Me]

I guess you are! Very nice!

 

[Quicklabs]

I guess you are! Very nice!

 

[Gdad]

These look great! I am glad you are getting acquainted with your new lens!

I love the composition on the Bee/Ant picture!

 

[AndrewWG]

Wow! Great shots!! That has been a lens on my short list for some time now. Every shot I see makes the list shorter for that one. I'll own it soon I think!

 

[WVDisGeek]

I have been wanting to get a 50mm f/1.4 lens for low light shooting and would like to get a macro for some close-up photography. Came across this lens and it seems like a good compromise. Not quite the low light performance of the 1.4 but much better focal length for my Pentax K200D (42mm equivalent) and reasonable low light with the 1.8, plus it can focus in to 7 in. (or less, depending on if some posters are correct).

Just wanted to see if anyone on the Boards had used this lens and could give some advice?

Thanks!

Also, general Sigma question, will the metering and other functions (aperature, etc.) still be automatic with the K200D?

 

[gokenin]

sigma lens will work fine on your pentax from metering to aperture control. I had the DG version of the lens and found that i reallt didnt like the size of the lens it is rather large. I am spoiled with the small size of pentax primes. I did sell this lens and got an A28 which is slower than the sigma but i like the size better. the picture quality of the lens I had was good.

 

[Code]

Just a quick comment based on what you said about the minimum focus distance.. when talking about macro capability, the spec you should be looking at is maximum magnification rather than minimum focus distance. It is a measure of the size of subject that will completely fill the frame relative to the sensor size. For the 28mm, the maximum magnification is 1:2.9, which means an item the same size as the sensor will fill about 1/3 of the frame at minimum focus distance. For comparison, I have a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro lens that is 1:1, which means the same object would completely fill the frame. So it just depends on how small you want to be able to go.

 

[Groucho]

I haven't actually used this lens but did do some research on it a year or so ago... I seem to recall that the opinion was that it was OK but really not as good as one would hope. I would imagine that's still the case, as Sigma's three wide F1.8 lenses (20mm, 24mm, and 28mm) rarely get much consideration. Their 30mm F1.4 is fairly popular though it's getting ridiculously pricey.

Another option is a 35mm F2.0 lens, not quite as wide but highly regarded and fairly affordable. I don't know its macro capabilities off the top of my head, though.

 

[WVDisGeek]

Thanks for the info everyone.

Code, I know it isn't technically a macro lens as it isn't 1:1. However, as I stated, I was hoping for a decent compromise lens and the macro/close focus was a bonus.
The low light part was the more important consideration of the two.

Groucho, the more I looked online, the more average reviews I found about the lens. The recent Sigma price hikes aren't helping. Seems nothing to get excited about.

Will the 50mm 1.4 really limit my field of view to the point of being annoying?
My primary goal for the lens at Disney is for night time parade shots and indoor ride shots and outside the World, I would like to be able to get indoor pictures without the use of a flash. Will the 50 be able to fill the bill? The 31mm Pentax would be nice, but not in the budget at the moment.

Thanks for any advice.

 

[Groucho]

Will the 50mm 1.4 really limit my field of view to the point of being annoying?
My primary goal for the lens at Disney is for night time parade shots and indoor ride shots and outside the World, I would like to be able to get indoor pictures without the use of a flash. Will the 50 be able to fill the bill? The 31mm Pentax would be nice, but not in the budget at the moment.

Thanks for any advice.

The 31mm is insanely expensive, and I think it's more or less out of production at this point (though still available - and I think the 50mm F1.4 may be in the same boat, but I'm not sure.) They do have a new high-end 30mm lens on their roadmap which will probably be a winner, and will be their digital equivalent of the 50mm F1.4 on a film camera. A little wider (45mm equivalent) but probably similar speed, and most likely will be weathersealed and have SDM focusing, and an all-new design. Their recent 35mm macro was the replacement for the 50mm macro and has gotten some rave reviews, I'd be really surprised if the 30mm wasn't fantastic. They just "officially" announced a 55mm F1.4 that is the replacement for the old 85mm F1.4 film lens, too - that one's been on the roadmap for a few months so it was expected.

Anyway, I think the 50mm does pretty well in the majority of WDW situations, I generally didn't have issues with it being too narrow at all. A little wider is nice but not absolutely necessary for the low-light photos IMHO.

Your options for faster (faster than F2.8) wide-angle primes are pretty much the Pentax 31mm F1.8, 35mm F2.0 and the Sigmas - 30mm F1.4 and F1.8 at 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm. The 30mm F1.4 is probably the top choice if you want faster and the most light-gathering ability. The 31mm is, as we said, very expensive and the 35mm is a bit slower. I'd have to go with the 50mm, it's very fast and very high quality at a bargain price.

 

[WVDisGeek]

Thanks everyone. Now I just have more to think about!!
Our trip isn't until December so I guess I have some time to think about it and get the lens in time to practice before we leave.

Back to info gathering on the web! I'll sleep next week!

 

[Code]

I went with a 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 on the WDW trip I just got back from last week, it was the first time with both lenses. The 50 was good for most dark rides, better than the 30 on some rides.. I probably used it half the time for this. But for walkaround night shooting it was generally just a bit too long, the 30 definitely got more use. As far as real life, I definitely use the 30 more for family gatherings, I'm actually considering selling the 50 now that the big trip is over, but it's quite a bit more expensive than the little Pentax gem.. its great value is what it really has going for it.

 

[jrmasm]

We have a digital SLR but my husband carries a compact with him on a daily basis. From what I understand, his current compact camera doesn't do a great job with Macro shots. He has a Cybershot but I'm not sure which model.

What would you recommend? Preferrably under $200.

TIA!

 

[zackiedawg]

You'd have to narrow down the Cybershot designation - there are dozens of models and they can be quite different.

As for macro with a compact - there are a few that can focus down to millimeters for tight macro work - my Sony T100 has both a macro mode and a super-macro mode - in super-macro, the camera can focus on an object resting on the lens' glass - so focus distance is essentially 0. Several of the slimline cameras like the T-series, of which Casio, Fuji & Nikon also offer models, can do that thanks to the internal zoom mechanisms and flush outer glass with no protruding lens. I've used my T100 for everything from vacation shots to abstracts to macros...it serves pretty well as a backup to my DSLR when I don't want to carry around a camera. It is small enough to slip in a pocket or hand around my neck, and sits in my car's center console cup holder when I drive...so that I have a camera with me at all times.

Many compacts are quite nice, and I'm sure others have macro functionality - my experience is with the Sony T-series since I have one...and they do have a very effective macro capability because of that 0 distance focus ability.

 

[Andrew*A]

I have been looking into buying a Sigma 70-300mm APO f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro lens.

I use a Nikon d40 and was wondering if anyone has any feedback in relation to this lens.

 

[jfinke]

I have it for Canon and it is a nice value lens.

It is a little loud, and slow to focus, but it takes very nice pics.

 

[DWjunkie]

I'm new to the DLSR world. Looking for a prime lens to shoot inside sports - basketball and cheer. i read that a 50 mm would be good. Please help me understand the differnce b/t these 2 lens. I don't think I get the whole "macro" concept yet. TIA

Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 II Standard Auto Focus ($90)

Canon EF 50mm F/2.5 Macro Lens ($250)

 

[YesDear]

I am not a Canon user but the question is not Canon specific. The 50 1.8 is a prime fast lens. The 50 2.5 macro is a specialty lens designed for taking pictures of small items very closely and within a short focal distance. If you are looking for taking sports, the 50 1.8 would be better. You really need a longer fast lens to get the sports pictures you probably want.

 

[jfinke]

The 50 f/1.8 is nice optically. However, its build quality leaves something to be desired. Unfortunately, mine seems to hunt and peck quite a bit in low light, which is usually when I want to use it!

That being said, I am not sure that there is a better bargain than the nifty fifty. Most people get one as their second or third lens just to have a wide aperture lens.

 

[bostran1]

The f/1.8 is going to allow you to get faster shutter speeds at lower light levels than the f/2.5 because of the larger maximum aperture. Since you are looking to shoot sports you have no need for the macro (aka you can put the camera very close to the subject and it will still focus) functionality.

Depending on the sports you are going shoot, the distance you will be from the field or court, and your budget, you may want to look at a longer lens (like 200 or 300 mm).