Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 II Zoom Macro Lens

09/27/2006 10:31:09 AM · #1

I'm wondering if this would be a good macro lens for me? I'm still a beginner...learning as I go. But I want a macro lens. I love close ups of flowers, objects, etc.

Any advice would be GREAT!

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/27/2006 10:37:59 AM · #2

You should know that Sigma (and perhaps others) call a lot of their lenses "Macro". They have closeup capabilities, but are not true "Macro" lenses capable of 1:1 reproduction.

My Sigma 18-125 is also called a Macro lens. It focuses closer than any other lens I have, and so indeed is a "closeup" lens. But it's something like 1:3 or 1:4 reproduction--not 1:1. It's still good for flowers etc., but you won't be taking shots at life size (without cropping).

You can also get extension tubes and convert any lens into a Macro lens. I use tubes with my Canon 70-300 IS DO and it gives me a great macro lens which has built in IS and good range. I'm sure it's not as sharp as buying a Canon 100mm Macro, or the well thought of Sigma 105mm Macro, but it's pretty good. A set of extension tubes (I have the Pro-Optics) cost around $90 for a non-Canon brand. Note extension tubes do not have optics, so brand is less important, EXCEPT that some have problems with some EF-S lenses (notably the Kenko). Also, with the pro-optics, I don't get autofocus with more than one tube attached, but to be honest, I can't imagine autofocus being really useful in a macro shot.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

09/27/2006 10:44:33 AM · #3

I'm going to jump out there and say... probably not.

Short focal length macro lenses (particularly zooms) don't usually manage to have very good magnification ratios... typically 1:3.5-4.5

Magnification ratio is a definition of how large the image is on the external side of the lens compared with how large it is on the sensor/film side of the lens.

Macro lenses are typically labelled such recently if they can get as good as 1:5. That's not really very close.

In fact, macro is generally defined as being 1:1.

Some lenses can 'sneak in' to this category when people use them on crop factor type sensors, so lenses that are 1:2 are actually pretty close to the real thing.

Lenses with 1:3.5 or 1:5 or whatever really don't get close enough to be called that.

The second consideration with a macro lens is the subject. Macro shooting is generally best done with a bit of space. If you don't have the space, you often end up blocking the light with the lens... read as: PAIN IN THE BUTT TO LIGHT.

A 28-80 is generally considered a 'walkaround lens'

A better walkaround lens might be the Sigma 17-70. It has a 'macro' too, but as with the other similar lenses, it's not really all that close in focusing.

The 28-80 is a range that gained fame for its versatility in use on FILM cameras and is mostly appropriate for film or full frame cameras... 24-70 is even better.

These lenses also have the benefit of being quite affordable with excellent quality.

Check the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. only around $330-350 USD and it's phenomenal for the price. And the aperture is fast, fast, fast! That makes a H U G E difference. (but that's another discussion altogether)

Currently, there are a bunch of new lenses coming out with wider angles such as the Tamron 17-50, the slightly older and more expensive Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and the yet unreleased Tokina 16-50 f/2.8.

All of those will be great walkaround lenses and none of them will be great 'macro' lenses.

An excellent starter lens for a macro lens would be the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro... It's at least 1:2 ratio and you can be a bit farther away from your subject. This has massive payoffs for when you want to get some more control over lighting and if your subject is alive and camera shy.

Unfortunately, you already have the Canon variant which doesn't have the close focusing that renders the Sigma a 'macro'.

Above and beyond that for price you could look at the Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro or the Canon. That will get you REALLY close.

I find that too close for anything but smaller flowers and bugs.

I take a lot of dragonflies and slightly larger objects and find 1:2 to be quite sufficient for most of my needs.

There are other techniques that you can use as well, such as reversed lens technique (see the tutorials section), closeup filters and extension tubes.

09/27/2006 11:19:07 AM · #4

Thank you so much eschelar and nshapiro. You've been very helpful!
I'm trying to stay on the inexpensive side for as long as possible. I found this extension tube on Amazon. Is this something that would work for me? (I have the Canon Rebel 300D)

Amazon Extension Tube

THANK YOU!!!

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/27/2006 12:50:53 PM · #5

Yes, that would work but is limiting in range and it's relatively expensive.

This ProOptic set gives you a lot more options for your money. It works fine with EF-S lenses (it's the one I have).

Note that the longer the extension tube relative to the mm of the lens, the closer you can focus. I use the larger one from the set with my 70-300 mm lens. You would use the shorter ones with the 50mm for example. And you can combine them.

argyle

Canon EOS-5D

09/27/2006 01:23:43 PM · #6

I just ordered a set of new Kenko extension tubes for my Canon 30D. I ordered them through HK Supplies on eBay. The set retails here in the US for about $150+. It only cost me roughly $75 USD through HK. The only downside is the fact that HK is in Hong Kong, meaning longer delivery time. However, I did get them for roughly half-price. If waiting an extra few days is not a problem, I'd recommend the Kenko set of tubes. HK has an excellent rating on eBay also.

09/27/2006 01:41:41 PM · #7

Originally posted by argyle:

There's an issue with Kenko and EF-S lenses. Search the web for more info--I don't have the link handy. I also don't know if it's been addressed yet.

09/27/2006 01:55:55 PM · #8

So, would that ProOptic set work just as well as a macro lens?
I'm sorry to ask so many questions, I just know absolutely nothing about equipment yet. :)
Thank you so much for all yoru help!!! :)
Magen

09/27/2006 02:02:48 PM · #9

Basically, I ask if they are as good as a macro lens becuase I have the magnifying filters and I don't feel like the really work very well.
:)

09/27/2006 02:18:55 PM · #10

Originally posted by magenmarie:

Basically, I ask if they are as good as a macro lens becuase I have the magnifying filters and I don't feel like the really work very well.
:)

Not as good as a true macro, but flexible solution and easy to carry.

The screw on filter types are completely different in design. These do not contain glass--they simply move your lens further away from the sensor.

09/27/2006 02:27:43 PM · #11

Thanks nshapiro. Do you (or anyone who reads this) have any pic examples that you took with an extension tube? That would be aWeSoMe!!! Just like the help you've given me today! :)

YOu are WoNdErFuL Shapiro!

:o)

09/28/2006 08:29:27 AM · #12

BUMPING!!!

Anyone have any pictures taken using EXTENSION TUBES?
I'm curious to see what they come out like, how close you can get...etc. :)

THANKS!