| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2005 11:12:30 AM · #1 |
Wondering how close you have to be to the subject(bug,flower?) to get a good macro shot with this lens? The one we have now you have to almost touch the bug! Yucky! Want something I can get close without getting close- is this the lens I want? SIGMA 105 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro ?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 11:17:18 AM · #2 |
You can get pretty close to your subject with that lens without having to nearly touch it. I have the lens but don't have the minimum focusing distance at hand. I've never felt uncomfortably close to any insect I shot so far.
If you want to step back even more and if money isn't too much of an object Sigma also has a 150mm macro that also got great reviews. |
|
|
|
07/26/2005 11:17:21 AM · #3 |
i think to get an 1:1 macro the lens is about an inch from the bug? dont really remember but its pretty close.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 11:23:29 AM · #4 |
| Just checked....minimum focusing distance is 12.3 inches so that is the closest you can get to anything. Again, if you want to be even further back, check the 150mm but I think that's around $650 or something. |
|
|
|
07/26/2005 11:24:03 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
You can get pretty close to your subject with that lens without having to nearly touch it. I have the lens but don't have the minimum focusing distance at hand. I've never felt uncomfortably close to any insect I shot so far.
If you want to step back even more and if money isn't too much of an object Sigma also has a 150mm macro that also got great reviews. |
I'm looking at the 150 it says Minimum Focusing Distance 38cm , does that mean That's as far away as I can be, or as close as I be? I mean does it mean I have to be that close? Sorry not awake yet?
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 11:25:00 AM · #6 |
For any of the 100mm-class macro lenses, at 1:1 the working distance should be about 3.5 to 4.0 inches. That's measured with my Canon 100mm, but should be very similar for the Sigma.
If you want linger working distance, you might consider the 150mm macro by Sigma, though it is more expensive, I think. Another option is extension tubes on a good 200mm lens.
Note that as you increase the focal length, you of course will have more trouble keeping the subject in frame, and need higher shutter speeds to avoid visible camera shake. It's all a trade-off.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 11:51:46 AM · #7 |
I find the 105 Sigma to be very versatile and I can get in closer without the autofocus.
These were all taken with that lens and all are very different. You can get in tight with the bugs but also have a nice working distance and less need for external light sources and then crop. Great portrait lens too.
  
The bee and butterfly were taken from less than 2 feet away.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 12:00:07 PM · #8 |
Well I just realized I have the DG version for digital which is a bit different. But, I just checked the Sigma website and they list the minimum focusing distance at 12.3 inches for this lens as well. But I just pulled it out and was able to focus on something ( although with very shallow dof) at about 5 inches or so. So all I've managed to do now is become confused.
I thought maybe the crop factor of a digital has something to do with it? But then again, the DG version I have is made for Nikon digitals. |
|
|
|
07/26/2005 12:04:48 PM · #9 |
Minimum focusing distance is measured from the film (sensor) plane to the subject. You are measuring from the front of the lens, which is a lot closer to the subject.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 12:06:40 PM · #10 |
| THANKS! It might help if I actually learned a bit about my hobby rather than stumbling along like a doofus. |
|
|
|
07/26/2005 12:11:05 PM · #11 |
From what I hear (but maybe you shouldn't take my word for it, since I own the non-DG), the DG is somewhat of a gimmick and you can probably save a lot of money by buying a used non-DG version. But (as yido kindly pointed out for me when I bought mine), you may have to ship it off to Sigma to get it rechipped (free, but means you'll have to wait an extra 1-2 weeks).
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 12:34:44 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
THANKS! It might help if I actually learned a bit about my hobby rather than stumbling along like a doofus. |
De nada, amigo. As an addendum, it's worth noting that since the minimum focusing distance is measured from the image plane to the subject, and since longer macro lens are just that, "longer", the actual working distance from the front of the lens doesn't change as much as you might think. This is especially oticeable with my 60mm EF macro from Canon, which is a LOT shorter (physically) than the 100mm macro of Canon's, so the effective working distance isn't all that much different.
The 60 focuses to .65 feet, the 100 to 1.0 feet, leaving a difference (in theory) of about 5 inches. But the 60 is 2 inches shorter, so the effective working distance of the 100mm (measured from front of lens) is only 3 inches further back, give or take. Not a hell of a lot...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 01:04:22 PM · #13 |
I've jus purchased the 105mm EX DG version. It's minimum focus distance is 31 cm (about 12.4 inc.). It is some good distance from the subject, but for those less cooperative bugs it can be short. For example in the last weekend I was at Sintra, visiting a museum, and it had a small artificail pond. There where some tiny frogs on the margin (and I do mean tiny, about 1 inch total lengh). I tryed to do a macro but they where scarred away, and I had to go back to my 70-300mm to get a shoot of them (not very macro of course). But for bees for example is more than enough, because they don't mind having you sniff their back.
But the 150mm has a minimum focus distance of 38mm. So if they get scarred away at 31cm probably they will be also at 38cm, witch is only about 3 inches longger. To be far away you probably will have to go to the 200mm one. And that's huge bucks and a not so fast lens.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2005 01:09:51 PM · #14 |
hi,
Maybe you feel more confortable with the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro SuperII, you can get as big as 1:2, but the focusing distance is 95cm (38 inches), so you don't have to get real close to the subject.
OK, you can argue it's not a true macro, but maybe will fit you better if focusing distance is an issue. |
|
|
|
07/26/2005 01:15:04 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
...
and I had to go back to my 70-300mm to get a shoot of them (not very macro of course).
...
|
dammit, he overtook me while I was typing!!! :D
obrigado! ;) |
|
|
|
07/26/2005 01:20:07 PM · #16 |
Here's a macro from a strawberry with the Sigma
and the photo of the frog from the 70-300mm
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 02:41:21 PM EDT.
