New lens advice

[leifus]

Obviously I'm going for a macro lens for flowers and I am fairly sure I will go for the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO.

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? I tried it out in the shop but there weren't any flowers so it's hard to judge...

Thanks in advance

[charlieb]

The Sigma 17-70mm lens isn't a 'true' macro lens: it is only capable of a maximum magnification of 1:2.3 (a true macro lens will give a magnification of 1:1 e.g. Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro), although this may be enough for your needs.

The other problem you may encounter is that the Sigma 17-70mm is a zoom lens, not a prime like the 50mm - image quality will be lower on the zoom. Again, this is down to personal preference and you may not notice the difference. Of course if you need the range of the 17-70mm, then buy all means but I prefer the old-fashioned method

[bilimanjaro]

dont no about the sigma. but i use the canon efs60mm and 100mm. great lenses,,both f2.8..

[leifus]

Originally Posted by charlieb

The Sigma 17-70mm lens isn't a 'true' macro lens: it is only capable of a maximum magnification of 1:2.3 (a true macro lens will give a magnification of 1:1 e.g. Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro), although this may be enough for your needs.

The other problem you may encounter is that the Sigma 17-70mm is a zoom lens, not a prime like the 50mm - image quality will be lower on the zoom. Again, this is down to personal preference and you may not notice the difference. Of course if you need the range of the 17-70mm, then buy all means but I prefer the old-fashioned method

thanks so does the 1:1 mean you can't zoom in or out?...it stays the same wherever?

[Lancashire Lad]

Hi leifus,

I agree with charlieb's comments.

If you are wanting the macro lens for flower/fungi photo's you may well find yourself frustrated with the 17/70's maximum magnification being just a shade over half life size.

As possible alternatives, the Sigma 50mm macro gives 1:1 full life size macro, and costs slightly less. Their 105mm macro costs about £100 more.

Only you can decide what the main use of the lens will be, and whether you really need the flexibility of the zoom, but if macro is your main objective, then I would definitely go for the 50mm or 105mm prime. (Either of these two will be fine for flowers/fungi, as you won't need the working distance you would need for insects etc.).

EDIT - just seen your comment above - you can't zoom with the prime lenses they are fixed focal lengths. The 1:2.3 or 1:1 is the maximum magnification of a given subject that the lens will provide in macro mode.

2nd EDIT - They also do a 70mm 1:1 macro prime at about the same price as the 105mm.
Regards
Mike.

[leifus]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Hi leifus,

I agree with charlieb's comments.

If you are wanting the macro lens for flower/fungi photo's you may well find yourself frustrated with the 17/70's maximum magnification being just a shade over half life size.

As possible alternatives, the Sigma 50mm macro gives 1:1 full life size macro, and costs slightly less. Their 105mm macro costs about £100 more.

Only you can decide what the main use of the lens will be, and whether you really need the flexibility of the zoom, but if macro is your main objective, then I would definitely go for the 50mm or 105mm prime. (Either of these two will be fine for flowers/fungi, as you won't need the working distance you would need for insects etc.).

EDIT - just seen your comment above - you can't zoom with the prime lenses they are fixed focal lengths. The 1:2.3 or 1:1 is the maximum magnification of a given subject that the lens will provide in macro mode.

2nd EDIT - They also do a 70mm 1:1 macro prime at about the same price as the 105mm.
Regards
Mike.

ok then the 105mm - ive just been reading the reviews and one says that it takes a long time to take the photo and that it isnt the lens for you if you dont like tripod photography... is this true?

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by leifus

ok then the 105mm - ive just been reading the reviews and one says that it takes a long time to take the photo and that it isnt the lens for you if you dont like tripod photography... is this true?

I haven't a clue what that particular reviewer could be talking about

The 105mm is an f2.8 prime lens, so it's as fast as virtually any other similar lens on the market.

As for tripod use, if you are seriously considering getting into the realms of 1:1 macro, you will definitely need to use a tripod. It is nigh on impossible to hand hold at 1:1 unless the lighting conditions are perfect, or unless you are using flash.

Regards
Mike.

[leifus]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I haven't a clue what that particular reviewer could be talking about

The 105mm is an f2.8 prime lens, so it's as fast as virtually any other similar lens on the market.

As for tripod use, if you are seriously considering getting into the realms of 1:1 macro, you will definitely need to use a tripod. It is nigh on impossible to hand hold at 1:1 unless the lighting conditions are perfect, or unless you are using flash.

Regards
Mike.

ok thanks very useful!

With the original lens I mentioned - you said I would get frustrated with the 17/70's maximum magnification being just a shade over half life size....

im no camera expert (all i know is how to press the button ) so what does this mean exactly?

[gez]

Hi Im also looking at macro lenses im thinking of the sigma 150mm i prefer a zoom rather than prime as thats what im used to.
Has any of yo uguys used the 150 mm & what did you think? thanks in advance gez

[glsammy]

By being only half life sized it means the image size on your photo will be half the size of a true 1:1 macro lens. Not too much of a problem for most flowers but if you get into the insect world, you'll soon find you can't get a large enough image to show all the detail.
So far as to using the lens, I have the Sigma 150mm and highly recommend it. I rarely use a tripod but I do use a monopod and just about always use flash. Using flash it's quite possible to hand hold @ 1:1.
As for the comments in that review, the only thing I can think they may have been referring to could be the AF speed, which with most macro lenses tends to be rather slow at times. You soon get used to the way they work though and I generally use manual focus anyway, it give me much more freedom to select the focus point I want rather than the one the camera selects.
Once your into the macro world you could end up like me, totally hooked on it and even 1:1 isn't enough.