| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2006 09:52:09 AM · #1 |
For a while now, I have been contemplating between the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG and the Canon 70-200 f2.8. The extra money for the Canon has kept me from buying it so far. Well, now Sigma has their 70-200 f2.8 in a macro version. Sigma4less sells the macro version for $100 more than the non macro.
So the question for all you long lens and macro users: Do you think having macro abilities on a 70-200mm lens is worth an extra $100?
Thanks for any input you may have,
RCB |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 09:57:21 AM · #2 |
For me - yes.
I love macro shots, and have just bought a
Sigma 70-200mm APO DG Macro.
Not had much chance to try any macro out yet but if in your situation i personally would have spent the extra cash.
It just gives you the option, the variety.
I guess it all comes down to what pictures you want to take.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 10:05:08 AM · #3 |
I recently bought the sigma 70-300 APO Macro and more recently sold it. I didn't really care for it. The lens is heavy, very hard to use handheld, the macor was just average.
I did buy in its place the canon 100mm 2.8 macro USM and love it. The colors are amazing, the focusing speed is fast, the macro is great because of the floating rear element. Save your money and buy quality otherwise in a few months you will be listing it on ebay in hopes you get what you paid so you can get a really nice peice of glass. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 10:05:56 AM · #4 |
It all comes down to what you will use it for...
The 70-300 is 1:2 for it's ratio.. I'm not sure what the ratio is on the 70-200 and I've got some other stuff going on right now, so I can't check...
If it's 1:2, I'd say it's worth 100 dollars... If it's 1:3 or more... maybe questionable...
1:2 isn't true macro as everyone always likes to remind you, but the point of the lens is that you can take close-up pictures of things from a bit of a distance... You don't want to get tooo close to some things...
I find that a lot of flower shots and some of the bigger critters with various numbers of legs do very well with a 1:2 ratio... So unless you want to get really, really close, it will probably do you quite well, for quite some time... |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 10:20:34 AM · #5 |
| I'd take the $100 saved by buying the non-macro version and put it toward a real macro lens. The macro capabilities on my Sigma 70-300 APO are not only inferior (both in magnification and sharpness) to my true macro lens (Nikon 105mm F/2.8) it's also inferior to screw-on closeup lenses (at $50 for the set to fit a 50mm prime). |
|
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: 01/01/2026 03:26:12 PM EST.
