Macro lenses - questions and recommend

PaulieC

I tried to make a specific image the other night using various lenses (50mm, 24-70 and 70-300 with close focus filters) and basically they all thurned out like a pile of sh*te, so I've decided to get a dedicated macro lens. It's down to 3: Canon 100mm, Tokina 100mm and Sigma 105mm.
I know a lot of peeps here have the Sigma and recommend it, I've tried the Tokina recently myself and it's a big solid lump that's very comfortable to use. I've never tried the Canon, but according to the rviews, it's pretty special.

According to the specs, each lens is capable of 1:1 reproduction at around 12 inches, but the Canon has a close focus distance of around 6 inches where the Sigma and the Tokina have close focus distances of 12 inches. Does this mean that the Canon is capable of more that 1:1 at a shorter distance?

bovril

I have the Sigma 105, it's a great lens but is very very slow AF. Images are very sharp. I don't think there is much difference in price between the Canon one and it and I think the Canon would probably be quicker at AF.

Can't answer your question about the 1:1 sorry.

FreeAnd..

I havent tried the Sigma or the Tokina but the canon is a great lens...one I rarely use however, I have even been debating selling mine to reduce the weight of my gear overall...either that or putting it to better use..its these decisions that are killing me..

Paulw

I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. A brilliant lens especially for macro. Well worth trying/buying.

PaulieC

Thanks for the replies. Just had a look at prices and I can pick up a Sigma 105 & Sigma 30mm f1.4 for around the same price as the Canon. I guess that makes my decision a little easier!

anyone wanna buy a nifty-fifty ?

SOL

I have the Tokina (for nikon) and I haven't had it too long but it seems very solid and it has taken some nice photos. It doesn't correct its aperature for closer focal distances so at 1:1 your top aperature is f5.6 I don't know if this is the same for the others? But it is a nice lens...

elven

After trying the canon and the sigma, I chose the canon for the smooth, quiet quick AF and the general handling. Beautiful lens, and I haven't regretted it one bit. Al has the 105 and after having a shot of the canon the other day i expect he would have swapped them, given half a chance

At the end of the day though the sigma does the job, if you're using it purely for macro and not for portraits or anything and you don't care about the af, the sigma is a beautifully sharp lens from what I've seen. And if you can get the 30mm as well for the price, welllllll....

(The canon is usm though so the front element doesn't move when it focuses, bear that in mind if you're shooting beasties or something that might get spooked)

Remember you can also use the macro lens with tubes to get ridiculously close as well...

PaulieC

is the AF really that slow? How slow is it compared to, say, a Canon 50mm 1.8? I find that to be fine. Usage wise, I would imagine that I would be using it for mostly static subjects.

Roen

In what regard did the pics turn out ****e? What was your set up?
And no the AF is not slow, it's grand.

PaulieC

trying to photograph some sweets on red tissue paper (don't ask !). Couldn't get close enough with either 50mm or 24-70 lenses and couldn't focus with the close up filters. I was looking for really up close with real skinny DOF, but they turned out so badly that I deleted them. And I've never done that before

Are your macors on flickr done with the Siggy?

feileacan

i have the canon and on the whole im fairly happy with it. im not sure where you got the 6 inch focus distance but no you cant -unless you buy an extension tube (Canon EF25ii), which will decrease the focusing distance. i bought one and, yes it does make a difference.

some initial macro shots (excuse the weird collection of images)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pamilne/sets/72157600945990604/

with extension tube

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pamilne/sets/72157601265189835/

hope it helps !

bovril

cambo_gueno wrote:

is the AF really that slow? How slow is it compared to, say, a Canon 50mm 1.8?

are you talking about the sigma 105mm? in that case is noticably slower than the 50mm 1.8, I couldn't actually equate the time etc. In most cases it doesn't matter to me because I am either shooting flowers etc that are not moving or I am manually focusing.

bovril

cambo_gueno wrote:

Are your macors on flickr done with the Siggy?

not sure if you're talking to me but anything in my macro set and most of the botanics close ups in my botanics set are the sigma. Please excuse the quality, i'm only kinda getting the hang of macro photography lately. Still in the early days of learning!

Roen

I mean did you use a tripod, mirror lock up etc? You need a lot of light to be able to stop down enough to even get razor thin DoF with extension tubes at such close distances.

You might find you run into the same stumbling blocks with a dedicated lens.
Consult with the elfy one on technique before shelling.

+1 for the Canon 100mm ƒ2.8 though, it rocks verily!

PaulieC

bovril wrote:

not sure if you're talking to me but anything in my macro set and most of the botanics close ups in my botanics set are the sigma. Please excuse the quality, i'm only kinda getting the hang of macro photography lately. Still in the early days of learning!

Yeah, right !!

I think I'll go for the Sigma, AF speed is not hugely important to me.
Thanks

PaulieC

Roen wrote:

I mean did you use a tripod, mirror lock up etc? You need a lot of light to be able to stop down enough to even get razor thin DoF with extension tubes at such close distances.

You might find you run into the same stumbling blocks with a dedicated lens.
Consult with the elfy one on technique before shelling.

+1 for the Canon 100mm ƒ2.8 though, it rocks verily!

Oh ok, yeah I was using a tripod and a remote thingy....damn, not so sure now !!!

Fajitas!

elven wrote:

Al has the 105 and after having a shot of the canon the other day i expect he would have swapped them, given half a chance

Very nearly

In the Sigma's defence though, I think it has a stronger (metal) body, and is ever so slightly sharper... If you think the AF is slow on the Canon though, don't go near the Siggy.

JMcL

One more for the Canon, it's a brilliant lens. In terms of image quality, from the reviews there doesn't seem to be a huge amount between them all. I went for the Canon for the AF (it's pretty quick) and the fact the front doesn't extend (important if you want to shoot critters - the flowers won't give a toss!)