Thinking of Buying a new Macro lens

[grenl]

I'm thinking of buying a new macro lens for my 30d and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what I should go for??

[Fourwings]

If you want the best there is and budget isn't a serious issue then buy a Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG HSM macro lens. You will not be dissapointed.

A review of this lens is here.
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/re...uct/294/cat/31

[eeyore]

on a more modest budget (circa 300notes) you could also look at the tamron 90mm f2.8 macro or the sigma 105 f2.8 macro - both of which are also reviewed in our reviews section.

I believe sigma have also recently brought out a 70mm f2.8 macro which is a bit cheaper still but i dont know if anyone here has used it

[Newhythebirder]

On my 10d I use the Tamron 90mm Macro and the Sigma 180mm Macro. The Tamron is superb IMHO. So good in fact that I don't feel the need to spend out on the Canon 100mm Macro. The Sigma 180mm is also very nice, but I don't use it that often for butterflies & Dragons - I tend to stick to my 100-400 Canon for that and get some nice images.

[nightshade]

Tamron 90,Sigma 105,Sigma 150 seem to be most popular
The Sigma150 for serious money and use
The lighter Sigma 105 with good handling(my choice)excellent images
The Tamron 90 a very good choice on a par with the Canon 100
You pays yer money.......

[colincurry]

Originally Posted by Newhythebirder

On my 10d I use the Tamron 90mm Macro and the Sigma 180mm Macro. The Tamron is superb IMHO. So good in fact that I don't feel the need to spend out on the Canon 100mm Macro. The Sigma 180mm is also very nice, but I don't use it that often for butterflies & Dragons - I tend to stick to my 100-400 Canon for that and get some nice images.

I have a Canon 100-400 and am inerested to see what you say about dragons and butterflies. Which techniques do you use and how do you go about it, please?

Thanks

Colin

[Boddie]

For handholding my choice is the 105 Siggy. The 150 is just a tad heavy. If you are going to employ a tripod I dont think you'll find better than the 150 Siggy however. I just find that a tripod for macro work is a bit too much but have yet to get into it big time

[nutmeg]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I believe sigma have also recently brought out a 70mm f2.8 macro which is a bit cheaper still but i dont know if anyone here has used it

I'm looking for a macro lens and have been considering the Sigma 105 -- then read eeyore's comment about the new 70mm f2.8 macro and I too wonder if anyone here has used it? I've read a few favourable reports of it online and it is cheaper...

[eeyore]

theres a 50mmthats cheaper still - but if you are going to photograph anything that might run , fly, hop or slither away i would reccomend you to get something with a bit of length - the 105 or tamron 90 are ideal to start with - if you have more money the sig 150mm is also excellent.

if you are only interested in flowers and other static subjects however you could do a lot worse than the 50mm or 70mm , and a couple of ext tubes or a tc for added mag

[Steve H]

Originally Posted by Fourwings

If you want the best there is and budget isn't a serious issue then buy a Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG HSM macro lens. You will not be dissapointed.

A review of this lens is here.
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/re...uct/294/cat/31

I am presently using this lens,and yes it is very heavy but a cracking lens!
I have tried using it with a tripod and monopod but without glueing the subject down by the time I am ready to take a shot of an insect it has left appox half an hour ago
So all of my shots with this lens so far are handheld.

[matt_xyz]

for some reason the Sigma 70mm is more expensive than the 105 in many places, so I would certainly choose the 105 out of the two. Warehouseexpress, for instance, has the 105 at £274 and the 70mm at £308 although both can be bought cheaper elsewhere.

The 105 is an excellent lens and can be more easily hand held than the 150. As SteveH says, the 150 can be handheld, but your strike rate will be much higher with a tripod, particularly if you're using it as a true macro lens at 1:1 reproduction.

Matt

[GuyF]

I'm another Sigma 105mm fan.
It's a really light lens, easy to handhold and easy to carry around with you when you're out and about, and it gives excellent results!
However the results people get with the 150 are also very impressive.
Guy

[Tormentil]

I too have been looking at macro lens. I'm dithering between the Tamron 90 & the Sigma 105. I've also considered the Sigma 150, but don't really fancy lugging another heavy weight about. I already have the Bigma !!

[Ollie]

Another fan of the Sigma 150mm. It's a cracking lens but as others have said does require either a tripod or monopod to get the best results. This suits me fine as I always carry a tripod with me anyway. Admittedly I miss a few shots in setting up the tripod but I do have a pretty high success rate with this lens and wouldn't swap it for any other.
Roger

[colincurry]

I have been using my 100-400 pump fairly successfully for medium range dragonflies and butterflies. When I go out, I usually try to snap whatever I come across. I have a 30D and no other lens other than the pump. In any event, I would be rather wary of trying to change lenses in the field. I also have a Panasonic FZ30 that I carry in a case on my belt with the Raynox DCR150 already attached for macro work that I can easily access on the hoof. I must admit that the Sigma 105 seems very attractive as it can be used without a tripod. Perhaps when my boat comes in, I might be able to rise to a 400D with a dedicated Sigma 105 that would replace my Panasonic/Raynox set up.

Colin

PS Please don't tell my guv'nor

[Mully]

Has anyone used the Sigma 105 AF, which doesn't have manual focus?

[mart_d50]

Originally Posted by Mully

Has anyone used the Sigma 105 AF, which doesn't have manual focus?

another supporter for the Sigma 105, a cracking lens handholdable, which does have manual focus

In macro I find I actually prefer manual focussing, putting it back to autofocus for the wife to point'n'shoot

[Mully]

But there is just an AF version of the 105? Is that right?

[mart_d50]

Originally Posted by Mully

But there is just an AF version of the 105? Is that right?

I may be wrong but I don't think so ? what leads you to believe there is an AF only version ?

[Mully]

My mistake, I misread something on the web.

[mallain]

I find this website very useful:

Juza Nature Photography

It has some interesting articles and reviews on Macro Lenses

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

I too have been looking at macro lens. I'm dithering between the Tamron 90 & the Sigma 105. I've also considered the Sigma 150, but don't really fancy lugging another heavy weight about. I already have the Bigma !!

I've taken the plunge and after having a look at Rogers Sigma 150mm Macro the other day, ordered one from Cameras2u (reasonable price at 400 beer tokens, I thought), this morning. It'll arrive tomorrow.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

I've taken the plunge and after having a look at Rogers Sigma 150mm Macro the other day, ordered one from Cameras2u (reasonable price at 400 beer tokens, I thought), this morning. It'll arrive tomorrow.

You've made a good choice. After you've lugged the Bigma around, the 150mm is a featherweight!

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by glsammy

You've made a good choice.

Seconded! I was persuaded on another thread that a dedicated macro lens was a good idea and chose the Sigma 150 which I bought at the end of April. I love it - worth every penny!

Dave P.

[Boddie]

I have to admit that I found the 105 seriously limiting on the Thursley trip. 150 users were getting far more chances but I had to push it too far to get close.

May have to join the club