Which Sigma Macro (full frame)

[HDPete]

Hi guys,

I've recently been playing with macro shots on my 24-105mm kit lens and decided that I need a macro lens to get water splashes / milk crowns / bugs etc in their full glory. I previously had the EF-S 60mm macro on a 400D (96mm equiv) and never quite felt that it had the reach I wanted.

I've decided upon a Sigma lens for my 5D MkII based on various reviews, but I really can't decide between the 150mm and 180mm.

The 180mm has a higher minimum aperture of f3.5 vs f2.8 of the 150mm. It's also 4 cm longer than the 150.

I would like to be able to use a prime macro lens of such a long length to double up as a zoom with the use of a tele-convertor. The 1.4x convertor retains auto focus on both lenses giving 210mm / 250mm respectively. I was looking for a 300mm prime, so the 180mm with 1.4x convertor fits the bill closer.

So... I've kind of settled in my mind for the 180mm. Unless I'm missing something? Any issues with my thinking above - kindly shout before I hand over the readies.

On the subject of readies...

Warehouseexpress have the 180mm at a stonking price of £489 compared to £569 for the 150mm. Not sure if it's marked up wrong, but I would have expected the 180mm to be higher, based on Sigma's comparison table: http://www.advizia.com/CenterView.as...s&w=770&h=1280

Any Views / Advice?

Cheers
Pete

[HDPete]

I guess another consideration is whether I'll be handholding or not.

Any experiences between the two lenses and whether the 180mm with a 1.4x TC can be used as a 250mm zoom handheld - for example, at the local Sunseeker Rallye in the next few weeks?

[flake]

Nothing like starting off with the most difficult macro lens is there? ! what's wrong with the Canon 100mm Macro at £408?

If you are going to be photographing insects which are too far away to get a true macro shot, such as dragonflies emerging from a pond, then the 180mm macro is ideal. You can set up with a tripod and get shots that probably no one else will come close to, but there's a price to pay for that focal length.

Macro lenses produce less depth of field as focal length increases, to the point that the 180mm macro will give you a maximum of just 2mm against the 100mm 4mm. Add in the fact that it's more difficult to hold the 180mm still, because of the distance from the subject a 1mm movement at the camera is magnified much more.

Of all the lenses to buy I would suggest that this is one of the last ones to add to a collection, (and I do own a 180mm, a 100mm and an MP-e 65mm).

[HDPete]

Thanks for the response Flake.

I read on Juzaphoto.com the following:

The size of the subject is the third variable. If you take photos of large subjects you will have proportionally more DOF. For example, if you take a photo of a mountain at f5.6 you will have a lot of DOF, but if you take a photo of a butterfly with the same aperture the DOF will be very shallow.

I read this to mean that even with a Macro lens, you can still use it as a zoom and get a large depth of field if the subject is large.

In your experience, is that not the case then?

Thanks for your help.
Pete

[ap4a]

Originally Posted by HDPete

I read this to mean that even with a Macro lens, you can still use it as a zoom and get a large depth of field if the subject is large.

In your experience, is that not the case then?

They're assuming that you're going to be photographing very large subjects from far away. However if you shoot it from close up your DOF is still going to be shallower, as it's the subject distance that matters not its size.

[matt wilson]

When used as a fixed focal length lens in non macro mode the depth of field will increase as the lens to subject distance increases .

Personally I would go for the Canon 2.8 to it's a cracking lens .with a reasonable macro working distance .

I don't understand what you mean by using a fixed focal lenth lens as a zoom.The only way you will be able to zoom is you move yourself.

If I had a 5d I would be opting and saving for the best glass I could afford rather than compromising by using teleconverters to achieve the range as it's my understanding that a full frame sensor is far less forgiving than the cropped sensor you were used to.

[HDPete]

Thanks Matt.

So, forgive me for being dim, and if you could help me understand this a bit better.

If I want macro, you're suggesting the Canon 100mm 2.8 (non IS) lens? I don't think I need a macro range more than the 150/180mm for trying to get some macro shots of water splashes etc, so a TC isn't needed for macro work. What I'm still not sure on is whether 100mm is enough for me and I can't find a Sigma retailer with either lens in stock to be able to try them on the 5D.

Therefore, If I want a long reach lens for events such as motorsports, I'd be better with a dedicated non-macro lens, like the Canon 300mm IS USM? I was simply trying to kill two birds with one stone.

I made a mistake with my lenses that I had with the 400D (now all sold) and I want to have top class glass, but without 'overlapping' on my focal lengths of the various lenses. Should I be thinking differently in that a macro lens is for macro work, and nothing else?

Cheers
Pete

[matt wilson]

I personally use the macro for macro and also find it good for portrait to throw out the background .Take a peek in my gallery here I did the water drops on a 50 d withat lens .

Anything further away I use a canon 100 to 400 L that I managed to pick up second hand .

In an ideal world I would love a faster telephoto but I can't afford it .

I got the Canon 18 to 200 mm with the 50 D .It seemed fine until I saw what better lenses are capable of .

I would advise waiting and saving for what you really want or exploring the second hand market .(I wouldn't be surprised if the older version of the Canon 70 200 f 2.8 start appearing now it's being replaced and that's one lens that does not appear to suffer with the Canon teleconverter on.)

Get them on the camera or even hire one before making an expensive mistake.

Good luck in your hunting.

[flake]

Pete, I've re read this a few times, and I'm confused! What do you think a longer focal length macro lens is going to give you at the macro end as opposed to a shorter one?

As for a longer lens you might find that a macro lens used with a TC will not focus quickly enough, as they tend to hunt over a huge focus range, even with focus limiting. A Canon 300mm f/2.8 is going to cost you some serious money, even second hand they fetch over £2500. Of course there are the slower zoom lenses such as the 70 - 300mm which cost a whole lot less, but that only allow 1/4 of the light to the sensor so you get what you pay for.

I don't think you should be thinking of a macro lens & nothing else, but I do think that a lens for Macro & Motorsport is stretching things past breaking point.

[anglefire]

A macro lens is not going to cut it for motorsports - generally the AF on true macro lenses is too slow for motorsport - unless you are taking shots from the side when the subject distance doesn't change a lot.

From my experience, a decent motorsport lens is the sigma 120-300mm (I used the f/2.8, but no doubt the f/4 would cover many situations)