Prime macro lenses

DoubleT

DoubleT

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,318
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
been having a look at this lens

Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens

does anyone have an opinion on it? is it any good, it seems a good price,

my question is, with prime macro lenses are they only of use for macro work, or can you use them as normal, then flick a switch to enable macro work?

thanks
 
The macro's are great and fairly fast prime lenses in their own right. The macro is down to the focussing range rather than flicking a switch.

I believe the Sigma 50mm only gives you a 1:2 ratio (ie - the subject will be half sized on your sensor). A better bet is a full 1:1 ratio where the subject really is lide size on sensor.

I'd recommend the Canon 60mm EFS macro or, if you can, the 100mm macro. Remember, the longer the focal distance, the further away from the subject you can get and still achieve 1:1 life size :)
 
Don't know about the Sigma there DT ... but my Nikkor 105mm Macro can most certainly be used for anything else it is suitable for ... or in my case eminently unsuitable for ... as well as Macro ... :thumbs:

Oh and there is no 'switch-throwing' to change between the two ... ;)

HTH ... :shrug:





:p
 
ive just been reading some reviews on this lens and it seems to be of very good standard.
jonny, dont think the canon lens would be suitable for me though :nikon:
i think this lens is a 1:1

i mentioned "flicking a swicth" because with the zoom lenses , my dad has a 28-300 sigma macro, you need to put it on full zoom them enable macro to lock it ( i think)



heres the reviews

sg150f28.jpg
 
DoubleT said:
i mentioned "flicking a swicth" because with the zoom lenses , my dad has a 28-300 sigma macro, you need to put it on full zoom them enable macro to lock it ( i think)
Click to expand...

That makes sense DT ... as it's a zoom ... prime lens Macros will not need that locking facility ... :D

Good reviews on that Sigma ... one thing to remember though is the longer the Macro the further away you are likely to be, relatively speaking, from your subject ... :shrug:

Sometimes this is a good thing ... but other times it might be a pita ... :suspect:






:p
 
I've not come face to face with the Sigma 150 macro but I've yet to hear a bad thing said about it.

Was seriously consindering one as a more cost effective alternative to the amazing Canon 180 macro for my kit but went macro on my Mamiya instead in the end.
 
yeah im aware of the distance thing, but i hope to be doing a fair bit of nature stuff so the extra distance will be a good advantage for me. i think :shrug:
 
The Sigma 150mm is a fine lens.

Some samples from mine...

commonblue_fem_epz.jpg


3sis_18-09-06_MigrantHawker_1_800_f.jpg


070906_paired_darters800.jpg


And here used as a regular 150mm prime

3sis_240706_robin.jpg
 
The distance is good not just for adding a mid tele lens to your collection but letting you work at 1 to 1 scale with good distance between the lens and subject. This means that you're less likely to be blocking all the light by being only a couple of centimetres from the subject, like you would with somethng like a 60mm macro.

The downside is that keeping movement blur out of your shots at 1 to 1 magnification is tough enough at the best of times and as you add focal length it gets much harder. The 150 will require a tripod pretty much all the time for real macro work in all but the very brightest conditions where you can get a shutter speeds up to around 500th.

Some samples from mine...
Click to expand...

Damn! There's no arguing with that quality. :clap:
 
-Oy- Cant help but feel as if your flutterby/moth pic would be easier on the eye, the other way round.
Have to agree with Dazza though .... those are beautiful shots :thumbs:
 
I have the Sigma 150 macro too. It is certainly a very competent prime lens at 150mm. The jury is still out for me as to how good a macro lens it is. So far I'm assuming it is me that is the problem but I don't get many shots that are as sharp as I'd like.

If the pictures are still in some of pxl8's early posts you will see more examples of how good the Sigma 150 can be. Maybe I'll have better luck this year - if not I'll be changing it for a Canon lens.
 
The usual thing forgotten about "Macro" lenses is the fact that they are generally computed to operate on a flat field or plane of focus. Probably easier to explain with a diagram as opposed to a thousand words but here goes! :lol:

If you were to imagine photographically copying a sheet of newsprint a proper macro lens will produce a flat field of focus as opposed to a more general lens which is not optimised to work in this fashion. It's plane of focus is more curved therefore compromising either corner or central definition.

It's for this reason manufacturers charge more for their macro lenses. It's also a reason why people ask if a "true" macro lens is suitable for more general use :(

I hate it when manufacturers state zoom lenses have a macro function, when what they really mean is the lens is capable of focussing at close distances. Grrr! Nikon produce a zoom micro 70-180 f4 but costs in the region £1000. I reckon that says it all! All their other Micro Nikkors are prime optics.....
 
DoubleT said:
<snip> my question is, with prime macro lenses are they only of use for macro work, or can you use them as normal, then flick a switch to enable macro work?<snip>
Click to expand...
I've got the 105/2.8 VR micro Nikkor and recommend it.

It's almost like having two lenses in that respect. On a tripod with manual focus and VR switched off, it's a very decent macro lens. Hand-held, with VR on it's a very good stabilised moderate tele.

You could maybe do marginally better with two specialised lenses, say the 70-180 micro and the 105/2 DC, but that'd be getting on for two grand for the pair and unless you're a very expert specialist in both macro and portrait photography, you are unlikely to be limited in any way by the difference (or even be able to notice it, probably)

If that's a bit pricey, the Tamron 90 macro is supposed to be very good also, perhaps marginally better than the 105 VR (only it doesn't have VR) according to some reports. Longer macro lenses tend to be preferred for bug stuff (which Oy excels at) and other shy or jumpy subjects.
 
Another possibility for dual use, effectively what you might choose to call the 'poor mans 200 micro' would be to get an old AF-N 180/2.8 (crinkle finish version) for a couple of hundred quid and a PN-11 extension tube.

The 180 is about as sharp a lens as the 60 micro as far as I can tell, but it's sharp at all distances and aperture and with a PN-11 it'll also get pretty close to 1:1, so you can use it pretty much like one of the longer macro lenses at about a quarter of the price of the 200/4 micro.
 
Both shot with a sigma 105mm macro. Not as good as Oy's images, but I hope demonstrates the focusing ability. This, and the sigma 50 mm macro, give a 1:1 ratio.

IMG_9376.jpg



IMG_9367.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top