| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2003 03:47:58 PM · #1 |
| Can anyone recommend a macro lens for the canon rebel, thats not TOO expensive : ) thx |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 03:51:29 PM · #2 |
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX - $359
|
|
|
|
11/05/2003 03:52:32 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX - $359 |
That is a great lens! I used to have one. Great for portraits too. |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 04:59:55 PM · #4 |
I've not got one but when I asked the same question a month or so back several people could not praise that Sigma lens enough.
As they say though, a photo speaks 1003 words. Jacko uses one and you only have to look at his portfolio to see what can be achieved with this lens. My personal favorite of his is (posted completely without permission, so I hope that is ok Jacko) ...
I don't think anyone could look at that photo and not be impressed by whatever lens was used (and the talent).
|
|
|
|
11/05/2003 05:02:31 PM · #5 |
| I have this canon 1x-5x macro I've never used. Maybe I'll get it out and play with it. I bought it just in case I needed it. |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 05:07:55 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Natator:
I don't think anyone could look at that photo and not be impressed by whatever lens was used (and the talent). |
Its worth realising that that was a pretty small crop from the center of the full image, so isn't a whole lot of use for evaluating the lens. Sweet shot though... |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 05:21:18 PM · #7 |
I know the Sigma is a very good lens, just want to put in a good word for the Canon 100/2.8 macro. The macro performance is probably comparable to the Sigma, which is to say outstanding, but you gain the USM focusing, making the Canon, IMHO, a better lens for general use. Of course there is the $100 price difference...
Either way, you can't go wrong, I think.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2003 05:46:04 PM · #8 |
what exactly is the USM focusing?
i am out of date when it comes to lense technology.
Originally posted by kirbic:
but you gain the USM focusing |
soup |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 05:54:40 PM · #9 |
Gordon, I think you're exagerating when you're saying small crop. Not sure how you can make that statement without having seen the original. I did say it was a crop, and that I would locate the original. I actually posted some other pics from that day here so you can see other close ups:
//www.pbase.com/jacko/smilie
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Natator:
I don't think anyone could look at that photo and not be impressed by whatever lens was used (and the talent). |
Its worth realising that that was a pretty small crop from the center of the full image, so isn't a whole lot of use for evaluating the lens. Sweet shot though... |
|
|
|
|
11/05/2003 05:57:08 PM · #10 |
looks like about 75% was cropped out
that's substantial, no?
soup |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 05:58:19 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by soup:
what exactly is the USM focusing?
i am out of date when it comes to lense technology.
Originally posted by kirbic:
but you gain the USM focusing |
soup |
USM = Ultrasonic motor - FAST!
|
|
|
|
11/05/2003 06:04:55 PM · #12 |
Thanks everyone for your advice I will look at the sigma and the canon, and then I will check my bank account and decide which : )
thxs lynn |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 06:22:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I know the Sigma is a very good lens, just want to put in a good word for the Canon 100/2.8 macro. The macro performance is probably comparable to the Sigma, which is to say outstanding, but you gain the USM focusing, making the Canon, IMHO, a better lens for general use. Of course there is the $100 price difference...
Either way, you can't go wrong, I think. |
The Canon is double the price of the Sigma in the UK. |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 06:23:20 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 07:35:05 PM · #15 |
ahhhh!!!
couldn't get unsharp mask out of my head ;}
was looking at some moderatly priced lenses last night till that stumped me...
Originally posted by kiwiness:
USM = Ultrasonic motor - FAST! |
thanks,
soup |
|
|
|
11/05/2003 10:28:35 PM · #16 |
Looks like you left about 25% of the original, which was about what I thought it was from when you'd shown me the originals before - I think that is pretty substantial, don't you ? All I was pointing out is its hard to evaluate the quality of a lens when you only look at a small crop from the optical center - where the quality is always higher - also works out looking like 4x more magnification than it actually was if people aren't aware what you get from a 100mm macro.
Message edited by author 2003-11-05 22:30:25. |
|
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: 09/09/2025 10:34:54 AM EDT.
