DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Best Macro Lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/23/2007 06:28:18 AM · #1
Wanting to fill a hole in my lens range and buy a macro. Thought about the Nikon 105 but can't see the value compared to the Sigma.

If I do go Sigma, which one? The 50, 70 or 105? Or does anyone have any other suggestions?
 01/23/2007 08:12:29 AM · #2
Originally posted by guroos:


If I do go Sigma, which one? The 50, 70 or 105? Or does anyone have any other suggestions?


A lot depends on your subject matter. The 50-60mm range offers great value, but their close focusing distance can scare timid subjects and make lighting difficult. The 100-105 are to me the most useable macro range giving good working distance without the light loss usually associated with the 200mm range. I have not seen any reviews of the new Sigma 70, but with the DX crop factor the angle of view would equal the 105, but working distance would still be a factor since it is still a 70mm. Two very highly rated lenses for the money are the Tamron SP 90mm 2.8 macro and the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro.
01/23/2007 09:03:36 AM · #3
I've just purchased the tamron 90mm, and I can highly reccomend it. I did a lot of research before buying, and it basically seems to be a dam good lens. heres a few pages to read

//www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

//photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

//forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&message=18413279&changemode=1

First link espeically has a very detailed comparison. Basically it seems their all pretty similar really. My biggest reason for choosing tamron is that it delivered similar quality, if not occasionally betterthan the canon lens at much cheaper price. Also the Tamron lens is recessed quite deeply, so you don't need to purchase a lens hood (which I believe you have to buy seperately for the canon one, and that costs a bit as well).

One thing I will say is the tamron isn't the quickest at focussing, but I wanted a macro lens, so most of the time I'm using MF anyway, so AF speed is a bit of a useless point.
 01/23/2007 09:14:10 AM · #4
I just gave my Sigma 105mm f/2.8 its first real workout last night, and I was very impressed.
 01/23/2007 06:13:37 PM · #5
Originally posted by guroos:
Wanting to fill a hole in my lens range and buy a macro. Thought about the Nikon 105 but can't see the value compared to the Sigma.

If I do go Sigma, which one? The 50, 70 or 105? Or does anyone have any other suggestions?


I absolutely love my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro. I'd considered Canon's EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro and EF 100 f/2.8 Macro. For the money, the Sigma is an outstanding value (hood and tripod collar included) and tack sharp. I also love the extra reach (particularly on a 1.5/6x body like the 20D (or D70)).

Other than a terribly slow AF -- typical of most all macro lenses -- it's a long macro, flexible 150mm prime, or even a long portrait lens. :) (BTW, I find myself shooting mostly in MF anway so the AF speed isn't really an issue.)

Again, excellent sharpness. Here are a few recent samples (all shot handheld with 20D):


01/23/2007 06:59:19 PM · #6
Thnx guys for all the comments and links. After reading thru these I am leaning to Sigma 105.
 01/23/2007 07:15:13 PM · #7
Which lens gives the greatest maginifcation, and by this i don't mean how close to the subject you actually have to be, i.e 50mm vs 150mm.
I mean how large it is, like more than 1:1 for instane, or is 1:1 the maximum?
I want to go mega-macro!

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 19:15:33.
 01/23/2007 07:22:24 PM · #8
Originally posted by Kerm:
Which lens gives the greatest maginifcation, and by this i don't mean how close to the subject you actually have to be, i.e 50mm vs 150mm.
I mean how large it is, like more than 1:1 for instane, or is 1:1 the maximum?
I want to go mega-macro!


I can't remember the answer to that exact question after I asked it about 6 months ago, but the solution that I eventually went with after hearing the answers was to get Kenko extension tubes. They weren't costly and offer a route to 'mega-macro'.

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 19:22:56.
 01/23/2007 07:52:30 PM · #9
I think that is a good choice. I have seen the photos taken with this lens, and if Sigma ever makes the 105mm to fit my Sony, I plan on getting it. One of the best folks to look at the macros using a 105mm is Ursula. I can't remember if she has the Sigma or the Nikon. I think she has the Sigma, but she has taken some fab shots with the 105mm macro.
Originally posted by guroos:
Thnx guys for all the comments and links. After reading thru these I am leaning to Sigma 105.
01/23/2007 08:01:29 PM · #10
Originally posted by Kerm:
Which lens gives the greatest maginifcation, and by this i don't mean how close to the subject you actually have to be, i.e 50mm vs 150mm.
I mean how large it is, like more than 1:1 for instane, or is 1:1 the maximum?
I want to go mega-macro!


The Canon MP-E 65mm is the king of high magnification macro for Canon. It's minimum magnification is 1:1, and it goes up to 5:1.
It's possible to get greater than 1:1 with most macro lenses, by using one or more of the following strategies:
- Reverse a 50mm lens on the front of your 100mm macro lens
- Use extension tubes with your macro lens
- Use a teleconverter with your macro lens
- Use a combination of the above.
The following table shows approximate maximum magnifications using some combinations of the above strategies:



Note that the coverage dimensions are for an APS-C (1.6-crop) cam. Also note that the Canon 2.0X II teleconverter can ONLY be used with the 100/2.8 Macro lens when an extension tube is inserted between them.

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 20:05:51.
 01/23/2007 08:05:24 PM · #11
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Kerm:
Which lens gives the greatest maginifcation, and by this i don't mean how close to the subject you actually have to be, i.e 50mm vs 150mm.
I mean how large it is, like more than 1:1 for instane, or is 1:1 the maximum?
I want to go mega-macro!


The Canon MP-E 65mm is the king of high magnification macro for Canon. It's minimum magnification is 1:1, and it goes up to 5:1.
It's possible to get greater than 1:1 with most macro lenses, by using one or more of the following strategies:
- Reverse a 50mm lens on the front of your 100mm macro lens
- Use extension tubes with your macro lens
- Use a teleconverter with your macro lens
- Use a combination of the above.
The following table shows approximate maximum magnifications using some combinations of the above strategies:


Thank you for this information. I'm looking for a good macro lens for my Rebel XT. I was hoping for something cheaper and would need to look around for other alternatives.
 01/23/2007 08:06:40 PM · #12
I am prejudiced, but I like the Sigma 105. I have not tried any other macro lenses, so I can't compare. As others have said, it depends on what you want to do, that is, if you know what specifically you want to do. In my case, I didn't know what I wanted to do with the lens, so it's worked out well.

I bought it originally because jacko had one, and I envied his closeups (in particular his flies).
 01/23/2007 08:23:46 PM · #13
Don't forget the new Sigma 70mm macro. Popular Photography magazine called it the sharpest lens currently made by Sigma.

My own experience is with the Sigma 50mm, which is optically good but the super-short focus distance really does cause problems (with live bugs in particular).
 01/23/2007 08:24:44 PM · #14
Originally posted by ursula:
I bought it originally because jacko had one, and I envied his closeups (in particular his flies).


...and I bought one because Ursula, Dax- and Jacko have one. ;-)
 01/23/2007 08:26:15 PM · #15
I have an old manual focus Micro Nikkor 55/3.5, and use it often. It took a little time to learn how to use it with flash on my S3 Fuji, but I seem to have that worked out to my satisfaction now. I found it on eBay for about $75 including shipping.
I also found a Vivitar Macro focusing teleconverter that I use with it, and that makes it even sweeter, as it makes the focal length longer, plus it will go deep into macro territory. If you intend to shoot very tiny objects, then you will likely be focusing manual anyway, so an older lens may be a less expensive alternative. I think that metering will not work with the D50 or D70, as it does not work with the S3 Fuji. After one or two exposures I can get it right by looking at the results.
Two good examples in my profile are , with just the 55, and on camera flash, and with the 55 + the 2X at full macro using on camera flash. The ants are about 4 times life size in the thumb.
I have an old Sigma 15mm fisheye that I am very happy with about image quality. Sigma makes good lenses.

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 20:29:27.
 01/23/2007 08:48:20 PM · #16
I'm just gonna put in my 2 cents. I've got the SIgma 150mm 2.8 macro lens and I love the thing. Its not only a fantastic lens for macros but it doubles as a very capable portrait lens. it is tack sharp, however it is heavy. The weight is my only issue with it. Another macro I considered was the Tamron 90mm.

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 20:49:02.
 01/23/2007 08:55:11 PM · #17
what exactly does the 'macro' part do? I mean I can get say 10"-12" away with my nikon 50mm and around the same with a sigma 105. So I do just see double magnification?
 01/23/2007 08:57:33 PM · #18
If I could get any macro lens I'd probably get the Sigma 150 2.8. It is heavy though, not a small thing.
 01/23/2007 08:59:35 PM · #19
and for my two cents ;)
i have the 60,85pc,105,and 200 nikon micros

the 200mm AF is the sharpest of the lot is is a GOD lens & is friggen amazing (if you look it up at DPC those are all my pics (ranging from sucky to very nice;))

the 85pc comes in second (but only does 1:2 without tubes)
then the 60
and IMO last is the 105mm

& i am looking for the now discontinued 70-180mm micro ;)

01/23/2007 10:19:59 PM · #20
Originally posted by Kerm:
Which lens gives the greatest maginifcation, and by this i don't mean how close to the subject you actually have to be, i.e 50mm vs 150mm.
I mean how large it is, like more than 1:1 for instane, or is 1:1 the maximum?
I want to go mega-macro!


All of the lenses mention prior to this post are 1:1 macros. Many lenses that aren't specifcially classified as Macro lenses but say 'macro' on them (or list macro in their spec) are generally 1:4 or 1:2 at most.

As mentioned, it is possible to get greater magnification than 1:1.
 01/23/2007 11:11:24 PM · #21
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ursula:
I bought it originally because jacko had one, and I envied his closeups (in particular his flies).


...and I bought one because Ursula, Dax- and Jacko have one. ;-)


And it is the next lens on my list becasue ursula, Dax-, jacko and now scalvert have them!
 01/24/2007 01:06:03 AM · #22
May want to consider the Tokina 100mm macro as well.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 01:30:24 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 01/03/2026 01:30:24 PM EST.