| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2005 07:36:10 PM · #1 |
| So I've decided I want the best quality macro lens I can afford. The EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM looks like the leader but it's a bit too pricey for me right now. I was wondering what Tamron/Sigma equivalents are out there and how they compare in price and quality, thankkkkkkkkks! |
|
|
|
11/02/2005 08:06:40 PM · #2 |
Maybe a good closeup filter like the Canon 500D to with your 55-200mm could be an interesting avenue. That is comming from a Nikon guy. I own this particular filter and use it on a Nikkor 80-200mm lens. I am pretty happy with the results. Here a few shot I have in my portfolio:
 
 
I can work from about 20" of subject which give great flexibility and I still get close to 1:1 reproduction ratio.
The Canon macro lens may top this combination, but with a 5.9" of working distance, it can get tricky.
Personnaly, I put definately on hold buying a dedicated macro lens.
Message edited by author 2005-11-02 20:07:34. |
|
|
|
11/02/2005 08:10:18 PM · #3 |
| Francois - what specific filter are you using? |
|
|
|
11/02/2005 08:28:24 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Francois - what specific filter are you using? |
I am using the Canon 500D. Yes, I know I am using a Canon filter on a Nikkor lens what a shame :). Actually, the shame is on Nikon for not producing the 6T filter in the 77mm size (there's no reason for this, except not wanting to steal sales from it 1400$ 200mm macro lens). The Canon 500D works like a charm; you just screw it on your lens.
However, I didn't had the opportunity to this this setup against a real macro lens. But from the experience I got with it, I think it could rival true macro lenses. |
|
|
|
11/02/2005 08:40:38 PM · #5 |
Hmmm..post got lost in the digital ether...
I hear good things, and nothing negative about the Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX macro
Samples shots from your friends |
|
|
|
11/02/2005 08:58:52 PM · #6 |
I have a Sigma 105 f2.8. It's a great macro lens. It can be a bit slow to focus, especially if you don't use the limit switch. Optically, it's excellent and honestly unless you try to shoot sports with it, it's not a big deal.
I'm also selling my copy because I don't shoot many macros. PM me if you are interested. I have the lens, hood, case, box etc all in minty fresh condition.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2005 09:10:21 PM · #7 |
I just got the Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro in Nikon mount.
It's a very nice lens and takes quite sharp images.
I've got to get used to the very shallow depth of field, but this is not unique to the Tamron, it's a quality of Macro lenses in general. The Tamron is no different from a Nikon or Canon lens in that regard.
The Tamron is a little slow to focus, it usually locks on the first time, but it seems to take a long time to spin the focusing ring. (I hope that makes sense.) I don't know if the Nikon (or Canon) glass is any different, or if it's the way the lens is constructed, or if it's a common thing with lenses like this.
Overall I'm very happy with it. For saving the amount of $$$ over the Nikon glass I was able to buy some other toys. Well worth it.
Here's a couple snapshots I took tonight with the Tamron 90mm macro.
 |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 08:26:05 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by fplouffe:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Francois - what specific filter are you using? |
I am using the Canon 500D. Yes, I know I am using a Canon filter on a Nikkor lens what a shame :). Actually, the shame is on Nikon for not producing the 6T filter in the 77mm size (there's no reason for this, except not wanting to steal sales from it 1400$ 200mm macro lens). The Canon 500D works like a charm; you just screw it on your lens.
However, I didn't had the opportunity to this this setup against a real macro lens. But from the experience I got with it, I think it could rival true macro lenses. |
Hmm, $140 bucks for this or spend $590 on a the 105. I may have to give it a try with my 70-200 VR 2.8. Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 08:41:29 PM · #9 |
I'm very happy with my Sigma 105mm
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 08:56:38 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Hmm, $140 bucks for this or spend $590 on a the 105. I may have to give it a try with my 70-200 VR 2.8. Thanks for the info. |
With the 70-200 VR, it's should be great. I am using it with the older but equally sharp 80-200 f2.8 lens.
It's worth it for the 20" working distance alone. I messed around a couple of times with a 50mm + closeup filter that gave a 4" working distance; it was a nightmare. This photo was taken from 4":
I spent hours getting the lighting right and not seeing the camera in the watch glass. It would have been so much easier with a 20" working distance. |
|
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: 09/21/2025 05:28:01 PM EDT.
