Sigma 105mm with 1.4x TC

[NickCantle]

I've been looking around the forum and I spotted a thread on the Sigma 105mm. In the thread, i noticed a few chaps 'bigging' up the Sigma 150mm to the point of me wondering if I may have been better off purchasing the 150mm instead of my 105mm. Of course I don't regret the purchase as I'm most pleased with the direction it's taken my photography However, working distance as has been identified elsewhere, is pretty tight with the 105mm; Which I love when photographing plants and fungi as I love getting muddy and getting to know the working space well and so I wondered if it might be worth purchasing a 1.4x tc to increase working distance when photographing dragonflies and other fast moving creatures.

All comments and suggestions appreciated

Nick

[genuinita]

The disadvantages of using the extender would be

• loose a stop of light
• image quality not quite as good

its hard enough to get sufficient depth of field and fast enough shutter speed to handhold for macro at the best of times - nevermind with half as much light coming through and even faster minimum shutter speed needed 'cos of longer focal length. 150mm would be far better than 105+1.4x, but then again the extender is useful to carry around whatever.
suggest you buy 150mm and extender!

[NickCantle]

That's an option that's just not possible I'm afraid...Thanks for the info though, you're correct

Nick

[Ollie]

Hi Nick. I don't know about a 1.4x convertor with the sigma 105 mm macro lens but I use a Kenko pro 300 1.4x convertor with the Sigma 150 mm macro and it works well. Granted as said you lose one stop of light but the extra working distance even on the 150mm makes it worthwhile in my opinion.

As for loss of image quality you would be hard pushed to tell the difference with or without the convertor, but as I said I don't know if the 105mm would take the convertor as well as the 150mm.

If you do decide to get a convertor it's the Kenko Pro 300 you want as Kenko do another 1.4 convertor that is cheaper but not as good image quality as the Pro 300 version.

In any case I would wait untill you hear for sure if the convertor works ok with the 105mm
Roger

[Boddie]

Buy the 150. I have both. The 105 is fine, and in my opinion better, for flowers, fungi, or anything that does not move, but the 150 is what you want if you want to get into insects

[mh68]

Just curious chaps, having not used a DSLR true macro lens, about what the working distances are with the lens on its own, and the lens with the tcon added?

Mark H

[glsammy]

The 150mm minimum is about 15" for 1:1. Adding the extender doesn't change the minimum at all, but you do get greater magnification, so your 1:1 becomes 1.4:1 (I think!) In effect this means you can get 1:1 at a greater distance, if you see what I mean!
I'm also a fan of the Kenko Pro 300 with the 150mm. It works superbly well. You need to do the taping trick to maintain full auto functions, as even when using a Sigma extender it stops auto focusing when at nearest focus.
One point to remember is you can't use Canon extenders with the Sigma lens. It fouls the inner glass. The Kenko obviously doesn't.

[mh68]

Cheers Graham, thats twice the w/distance of the raynox/panasonic combo, which with the 150 raynox isnt even 1:1 from what i`ve read....

Mark H

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by mh68

Cheers Graham, thats twice the w/distance of the raynox/panasonic combo, which with the 150 raynox isnt even 1:1 from what i`ve read....

Mark H

That's why we love the 150mm!!
It's not that optically it's any better than the 105mm, it might even be worse for all I know. What I do know is that it's FAR easier to get to 15" than to be almost touching the insect!

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Buy the 150. I have both. The 105 is fine, and in my opinion better, for flowers, fungi, or anything that does not move, but the 150 is what you want if you want to get into insects

Deviating even further, I've found that my Sigma 10-20mm is superb for flowers, a real surprise to me and something I wasn't expecting. You can get really close with good depth of field.

[mh68]

Originally Posted by glsammy

That's why we love the 150mm!!
It's not that optically it's any better than the 105mm, it might even be worse for all I know. What I do know is that it's FAR easier to get to 15" than to be almost touching the insect!

Yeah, 15" is a mile away compared to what i`m used to.....almost takes the fun out of it (said with tongue firmly in cheek)

Mark H

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Deviating even further, I've found that my Sigma 10-20mm is superb for flowers, a real surprise to me and something I wasn't expecting. You can get really close with good depth of field.

Interesting. I never tried my 12-24 on flowers but may now do so. Thanks for the heads up

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Interesting. I never tried my 12-24 on flowers but may now do so. Thanks for the heads up

Here's one I took at Clumber Park:



That was the first time I'd tried it, quite surprised me!

[Alfry]

Has anyone tried the 150mm with extension tubes?

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Alfry

Has anyone tried the 150mm with extension tubes?

Often! Works well. DOF is extremely limited, but you can get some really tight shots.
Most of the water reflection shots I took were with extension tubes: here's a few examples:





And this one of a Common Darter:



That was with 68mm extension tubes. I was as close as I could possibly get, almost touching the insect.
That's one of the effects of using them, you lose the distance advantage, but make up for it by increased magnification.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Here's one I took at Clumber Park:


That was the first time I'd tried it, quite surprised me!

That really is an extraordinary depth of field - interesting, thanks

[nightshade]

I use the 105 with a Kenko 1.4 converter and with tubes,I have not noticed any drop in quality and as a plus the 105 is light (but solid) and easy to manouver compared to the larger more expensive 150

[NickCantle]

Thanks for all your help guys. I think I'll do as Nightshade is doing and get a converter The 150 is out of price range as I've now clamped eyes on the Canon EF100-400mm

Ta!

Nick

[HowlinWolf]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Thanks for all your help guys. I think I'll do as Nightshade is doing and get a converter The 150 is out of price range as I've now clamped eyes on the Canon EF100-400mm

Ta!

Nick

Nick,

I don't use either lens you are considering (Nikon user), but comparing specifications, I'd go for the Canon. There may well be a £300 price difference over the Sigma 50-500, but for that you do get IS, and the Canon has fluorite elements (which are there to eliminate secondary spectrum). As Boddie points out in another post, the Sigma's true focal length at maximum zoom is, in reality, only 460mm (although I've seen 470mm quoted). This is common with lens manufacturers, who frequently fail to give the true focal length of their optics.
Always be prepared to spend a little more on something: in a few years, the cost will be forgotten.

HW

[Alfry]

Thanks for sharing the info on the tubes I have been considering them for some time and wondering if I could achieve the magnification that I was after the images you used as examples showed me that this is the way forward for me at this time or would anyone suggest alternatives?

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Alfry

Thanks for sharing the info on the tubes I have been considering them for some time and wondering if I could achieve the magnification that I was after the images you used as examples showed me that this is the way forward for me at this time or would anyone suggest alternatives?

If your after pure magnification, the 150mm isn't necessarily the best way to go. Due to the wonders of lens mathematics, a shorter focal length lens when used with attachments will give you greater magnification. It will mean you have to get even closer to the subject though. Or if money is no object, there's the fanatastic Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens , a truly awesome lens, but it costs around £750!

[Words]

Just picked up on this thread. I'm getting a set of tubes for my Sigma 105 tomorrow and am looking forward to trying them out. They're a real bargain in the sales... £29.99 (that big high street photographic chain which usually overcharges).

[matt_xyz]

tubes work fine with either of the Sigma macro lenses but, to follow on from Graham's point, they have more impact on a shorter focal length lens. The increase in magnification provided by tubes is calculated by the le