Hello, I'm planning to get a lens for Christmas. $ isn't a concern, as I can afford either lens (but not both) I'm looking at either the Canon 65 MP-E (And to clarify, I know how hard this lens can be to use. I've been researching it for a good year) Or the SigmaSigma 150-600 Right now i have a 24-105 that I use tubes on for my macro stuff. And a 70-200 for when I need the extra reach. I enjoy both, I just cant decide which to buy next. I know that this decision comes down to what do I want to take pictures of. But i'm almost at the point of just flipping a coin to try and decide that. Any suggestions? thanks, Chris
Time to answer your questions with lots of questions! What do you find yourself taking pictures of most? Do you need up to 5x life-size macro capability? Do you need 600mm? Both of those are very specialised lenses for very specialised applications - what about something more 'mainstream' such as an ultra-wide angle lens or a fisheye lens for some different types of photography?
I do have The rokinon 14mm that I use for my wide angle stuff. It's manual focus... But when your subject is a mile wide setting to inf isn't that hard... Now, do I need either 600mm or x5? no to both. But I find myself wishing that I had more reach in some situations. And wishing that my macro stuff could get a lot closer. So I don't know... which one would I use more? That's what I can't figure out.
what about a Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 IS STM lens http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_efs10-18.html
^I bought one of them at the weekend. Haven't had a chance to have a proper play yet but it seems great
@Georgek Do you mean the 10-18 as i have recently got one I have the 10-18 the 18-55 and the 55 to 250 all IS STMs Also a 100m macro USM using a 750D
I'm confused, that isn't a macro lens. and it's not a telephoto. Why are you suggesting this one? I thought about a lens like the 100 or the 180. But at the end of the day, the extra magnification of the 65 mp-e is something that I have wanted for a long time. But I also want a long reach telephoto like the sigma 150-600. So I'm trying to decide between these two.
Do you want to shoot bugs in the face? Go macro. Do you want to walk around like the Don with a massive lens that will ladies do... that thing they do when they're, like, really excited... You could possibly shoot stuff with it as well. Maybe got to the zoo with a bangin' tripod or hang outside some starlet's house. Go Sigma. Seriously though, you sound like you're more invested in the macro and would probably get more use out of it. A 200mm lens is about as much as one can use hand held before looking at mono and tripods. It's fine unless you want to go places where you can't get right up to the subject, such as air shows or track days.
I think the rationale behind suggesting a super wide angle was that it's something that you don't currently have the option of. Both of the lenses you've suggested strike me as something that a professional photographer needs rather than something that an amateur wants and so I sort of feel that you would know which one you needed if in fact you need either.
Before you purchase either, do you have a sturdy enough tripod? The necessity of a very good tripod for 600mm is obvious but also for extreme macrophotography using a tripod that is anything but rock solid means lots and lots of frustration. A good flash setup is also essential for extreme macro given the light falloff. I experimented with 7:1 enlargement once with... less than optimal equipment (a lightweight tripod and a flash consisting out of a desk lamp, and my lens was a wide angle taped to a tele) and even my slightest movements on the wooden floor could ruin a picture. Not a fun shooting experience.
I love shooting macro (Nikon based though so have the Micronikkor 105mm f2.8 VR), that said I feel that maybe a 65mm is really niche? Naturally you'll be able to close that distance on your subjects, but you'd also still need to use your tubes more for small things, which affects your lens speed. Personally I really like the extra reach of 105mm, but that's also going to depend on what kind of photos you want to take.
Reverse an old manual 28mm on your tubes for when you want to get really close (greater than 1:1) and buy yourself a tele. Job done.
Bought the 65 mp-e. Managed to get the store to knock some of the price off of it, not a lot but every penny helps. Here's a shot of an aloe plant. Amazing the vibration when you zoom to x5. The plant was vibrating to a beat and I couldn't figure out what it was. Until I discovered that it was in tune to my own heart beat... Pretty awesome, love the lens(but not it shows the dirt on my sensor). Can see me getting focus rails for it pretty soon though. At least I have a remote shutter to keep the vibration down to a min. Glad that I got it over the 150-600. I'll get that one some day, but I can see me having more fun with this in the mean time. edit: That stem is about 5mm wide for anyone who is wondering.
About 1100 cdn for the lens. Been playing with different lighting setups. I have a 100 watt halogen desk lamp that gets really bright. It helps a bit. I may look at getting a remote trigger for my flash as well. If I Mount the 430ex ii on the camera, it brightens the top of the frame but that's it so it would need to be off to the side. And the Canon macro flashes are over the top expensive. So I still need a better flash setup and focus rails... focus rails are a must to use the lens to it's full potential.
If you're using a single flash, my preference would be a hot shoe cable over remote triggers. All the fun of a hot shoe mount without the wireless shenanigans.
