| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2006 04:24:57 PM · #1 |
I'm going DSLR.
K100d
I have 2 questions and they are:
(1) best balanced all rounder macro lense for this camera.
Sigma 105mm 2.8
Sigma 28mm 1.8
2) The best zoom zoom lense
Sigma 18-200mm 3.5
Tamron 18-200mm macro 3.5
(also why is the tamron called a macro lense? the sigma does'nt state)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 05:30:46 PM · #2 |
| got to hijack cause i need a reply. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 02:50:12 AM · #3 |
Don't worry, you aren't hijacking. Hijacking is when you change the subject of a thread by unrelated posting.
What you did is called 'bumping'.
On to your question:
Short answer:
The best macro lens there would be the Sigma 105mm f/2.8. Not sure if there is another equivalent.
Also worth checking out might be the 77mm f/1.8 macro that Pentax makes, but it might just be too long to be really dual purpose and too short to give a good working distance.
If it were me, I'd get the Sigma.
Best zoom lens:
Short answer: Both of those lenses have very long ranges, in excess of 10X. This generally guarantees a pretty crummy level of quality for a good chunk of that range. Lately, there have been some lenses that are very good from 18mm up to around 120mm of their range, but I wouldn't personally go for that.
If you really must go for something like that, check out the new 18-200 OS by Sigma.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:02:10 AM · #4 |
Pentax 100mm macro is an excellent lens, that's the one I'd get, if Tamron makes on for Pentax, the 90mm macro is also excellent.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:04:17 AM · #5 |
Long answer:
The 28mm f/1.8 is probably not a great choice at all for macro. The working distance would be very close.
With macro, a longer working distance is usually better because it gives you a lot more freedom for working with live objects as well as more creative lighting.
For example, I get a macro setting on my S2 IS that allows 0mm minimum focusing distance.
The problem is that things that close are 0mm from the lens and that screws up the lighting possibilities big time!
I have to light from directly on top which is a big pain in the buttocks.
The 105mm is extraordinarily good though, so it's a great choice. Minimum working distance is a few good inches, so not to worry.
Now regarding the term: Macro.
This term has been going through something of a metamorphosis lately. It used to refer to lenses which were capable of attaining a 1:1 ratio. This means that the image cast by the lens on the sensor/film plane is the same size as the real object in front of the lens.
It is a term specifically referring to the optics of the GLASS.
Things have gotten a lot more confusing since standard film size is now OFTEN used as a foundation for 'equivalency', thanks to 'crop factor'.
This is not so relevant to your search.
however, one thing is important to realize. Crop factor effectively enhances the magnification, so a 1:1 ratio lens would provide something like an effective 1:1.5 ratio on a K100D.
Why is this relevant?
Well, recently, the line of 1:1 has become blurred. many brands such as Tamron and Sigma are choosing to label lenses as 'macro' when they merely offer 'close focusing'. Actual lens magnifications are anywhere from 1:2 to 1:5. 1:5 isn't really even in the ballpark of macro and is just a somewhat close focusing lens.
A macro lens with a 1:1 ratio is merely a lens which is able to focus close enough that the focal length allows the 1:1 ratio. True macro lenses (such as the 100mm ballpark primes) often have exceptional optics as well. You will notice this particularly when you really push the glass. I notice a massive difference between the optical clarity of a tiny portion of an 85mm f/1.8 and a similar portion of a 50mm f/1.8. Such differences will likely be noticeable also when comparing with high quality dedicated macro lenses.
having said all that though, I don't know what your budget is.
If you want a nice all-around combo, check this:
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 OR Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5
AND
Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro...
the last lens mentioned will get a 1:2 ratio (which will be helped a bit by the crop factor of your camera), and does indeed perform fairly well.
The total cost of that could be quite reasonable.
I understand that the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM is a better lens than the 28mm f/1.8, but I started a thread about this a while back and got almost no response. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:06:22 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by yido:
Pentax 100mm macro is an excellent lens, that's the one I'd get, if Tamron makes on for Pentax, the 90mm macro is also excellent. |
I'd take Yido's word for this. He has more experience than me.
I am simply not familiar with the Pentax lineup's performance.
I've heard that all of the brands make excellent macro lenses in the 90-105mm range.
A friend of mine did a HUGE job (over 15000 images of stock) a while back and used the Tamron 90mm. He liked it a LOT. |
|
|
|
10/06/2006 12:46:10 AM · #7 |
thanks guys, i'm def. going 105mm for the macro.
As for zoom dont think i'm going anything over 4X and definitely not 18-200. I'm looking for extreme clarity and don't care to sacrifice it for ultrazoom. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/12/2026 01:09:07 AM EST.
