[panik343]

Hi Everyone,

My current DSLR setup is as follows:

- Canon EOS 40D
- Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8-32
- Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8-22 EX DG Macro
- Canon 50mm f/1.8
- Canon 420EX External Flash

I've reccently picked up that feeling that its just time for an upgrade. I'm currently considering purchasing a macro lens because they are my personal favorite type of photos to take and I am unsatisfied with the sigma's "macro" capabilities. If anyone out there could reccoment me a new macro lens to purchase or anything else that may seem necessary I'd really appreciate it.

Sincerely,
-Mike

 

[Computerpro3]

I will trade you my 1.3mp sony camera for your setup.

PM me and let me know.

Thanks.

EDIT: I will throw in Bose headphones and a copy of Apple OSX as well.

 

[Samgotit]

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

or

Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro

Get either, extension tubes, and a flash bracket... enjoy!

They are closer in price than they used to be. I'd get the canon. The canon is easier (nicer) to use for other things outside of macro due to its USM and non-extending barrel, but I have the sigma and like it very much.

Here's a few pics with it:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/2817335-post847.html

http://members.cox.net/samgotit2/wasp-wants-to-eat.jpg

http://members.cox.net/samgotit/Wasp-in-plant.jpg

http://members.cox.net/samgotit/wasp3.jpg

 

[GAD]

Canon 135mm f/2L.

Best $800 I ever spent, and I've spent 10s of thousands on cameras and glass. The only lenses that come close from what I've used were the 85mm f/1.2L ($2000 now) and the 200mm f/1.8L ($4500).

The 135L is magic.

GAD

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panik343 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Everyone, My current DSLR setup is as follows: - Canon EOS 40D - Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8-32 - Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8-22 EX DG Macro - Canon 50mm f/1.8 - Canon 420EX External Flash I've reccently picked up that feeling that its just time for an upgrade. I'm currently considering purchasing a macro lens because they are my personal favorite type of photos to take and I am unsatisfied with the sigma's "macro" capabilities. If anyone out there could reccoment me a new macro lens to purchase or anything else that may seem necessary I'd really appreciate it. Sincerely, -Mike

Depending on what kind of macro photography you want to do, you may want to take a look at the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro. I bought one last year and it's probably one of my most used lenses. The optics are first rate, and pretty much a match for Canons macro lenses. The Sigma 150 has the advantage of including the tripod ring and lens hood, which Canon sells as accessories. The Canon 100, with tripod ring and hood, costs more than the Sigma 150. Some people may claim you don't need the ring, but positioning a camera for a macro shot can be quite tedious. Having the ability to rotate the camera about the optical axis makes life a lot easier.

Longer focal length macros are nice in that they give you longer working distances. The narrower FOV also makes it easier to choose your background, and gives better background blur. I love them for flowers and insects. The 150 is hand holdable, provided you have good light.

Most of the images in this gallery are with the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro. (Most = 95%)
Beerguy's Image Gallery- powered by SmugMug

 

[majid]

If you shoot insects and other easily spooked creatures, opt for the Canon 100mm or 180mm macros. I would go with Canon rather than an third-party because they keep their resale value better, but as Phil Greenspun puts it, there is no market for junky macro lenses and the third-party lenses are optically very good too:
Macro Photography - photo.net

 

[GAD]

Sorry - missed that this was about macro for the most part.

GAD

 

[martook]

If you want a cheap solution you could try using extension tubes... not as convenient as using a real macro lens of course, but the price reflects that as well =)

 

[panik343]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you want a cheap solution you could try using extension tubes... not as convenient as using a real macro lens of course, but the price reflects that as well =)

Doesn't that drop me down to about an f/4 max though?

 

[pianomav]

x2 on the Canon 100mm macro. They're great lens for the price. By the way, nice gear you got there. I have the 20D and would love to upgrade to the next camera that canon comes up with...

 

[Bob_McBob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAD /img/forum/go_quote.gif the 85mm f/1.2L ($2000 now)

Ahem

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panik343 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Doesn't that drop me down to about an f/4 max though?

No, you are probably thinking of teleconverters which have glass in them, tubes are just that - tubes.

But, you do get a very small DoF, so you need to stop down the lens quite a bit if you want anything in focus.

 

[GAD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_McBob /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ahem

Shows how long since I cure my lens junkie habits.

It was around $2000 when it came out no?

GAD

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panik343 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Doesn't that drop me down to about an f/4 max though?

Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, you are probably thinking of teleconverters which have glass in them, tubes are just that - tubes. But, you do get a very small DoF, so you need to stop down the lens quite a bit if you want anything in focus.

Actually, you do lose light with an extension tube. You are increasing focal length while maintaining a constant aperture; hence the effective f/stop decreases. A true macro lens is not f/2.8 at 1:1 magnification. Since you are at 1:1, your effective f/stop is f/5.6. (2 f/stops loss).

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, you do lose light with an extension tube. You are increasing focal length while maintaining a constant aperture; hence the effective f/stop decreases. A true macro lens is not f/2.8 at 1:1 magnification. Since you are at 1:1, your effective f/stop is f/5.6. (2 f/stops loss).

Hah! you are absolutely right and I was dead wrong. Never knew that, don't have any tubes myself. I guess it makes sense since you move the lens further away from the sensor, but never really thought of it. Thanks for the info