Looking for ideas for a macro lens- not sure what pirce range so could someone list the decent lenses in the area of less than £400, 400-100, 1000+ (For a Canon body (400D)) Thank you
http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_28&products_id=116 Thats what vers uses I think.
Indeed, I do use the Sigma 150. Granted it may not be the best choice depending on what you plan to shoot. If insects and other animate subjects are your thing you definitely want to keep some considerable working distance between yourself and the subject, specifically if you are new to macro. In this case I'd strongly recommend either the Canon 100 or the Sigma 150. In my case I went for the Sigma mainly based on the additional 50mm's and included hardware (hood and tripod collar) but also because I feel the build and bokeh is a bit better. Don't get me wrong, the 100 is a great lens and definitely a good buy for what it costs--IQ is virtually identical. Now, OTOH, if your looking to do product type macro the EF-S 60 is your best bet. I do want to bring one thing up though...macro lenses are considered niche/specialty lenses and you do not necessarily need a macro to do macro work. While you can shoot most anything with a macro, AF speed and accuracy can make that process a bit difficult for most. You may seriously want to consider looking into a set of extension tubes first and foremost before shelling out a considerable amount of money on a specialty lens. Then again, that all depends on how expendable your money is and whether or not you feel macro is something you want to shoot a lot of. What ever your decision, be sure to update us and feel free to ask any questions -Matt
Sweet nice replys thank you for that long explanation Vers. I'm intending to shoot more bugs/flowers etc. I've got a set of tubes for my lenses already but i'd rather have a proper macro lens than use the 18-55 stock or the tamron 70-300 set to macro mode.. hopeing that a decent macro lens will produce a better/sharper/nicer picture. Also - why the hell is it called Bokeh - seriously is there a reason for this or was someone taking the piss would this : http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=164613 : be an okish macro lens compared to the 150mm one - what kind of advantages does the 150mm have over it? (set Fnumber? better bokeh?)
1) Bokeh/Boke is a Japanese term for "blurry". 2) There is no comparison between these two lenses. The 150 does actual 1:1 macro and its IQ is on a completely different playing field. If macro is what you plan to do that 70-200 isn't going to get you the best results. As for aperture, you only shoot macro at f/2.8 if you are looking for a sliver of DoF--specifically when doing so in or around 1:1. The recent images I posted were all shot at f/13, that should give you a pretty good idea of what DoF looks like at those magnifications. Generally I try to stay above f/8--f/11 or f/16 (depending on the body) is ideal. FWIW, I, personally am not a big fan of the Sigma 70-200...specifically the first version though it may be a great lens for others.
kk - you on msn by any chance so i can badger you for great advice ? thank you for clearing up the bokeh thing - thought it was silly - makes sense now. Was reading http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx and http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx and they say the sigma has some issues with AF? have you found this at all?
I think you may have misinterpreted what Bryan was saying. The lens does not have AF issues per se, rather, like all macros, has a relatively slow AF speed and tends to hunt. According to him [Bryan] The Canon has 'quicker' AF ability (though I haven't seen this) but the fact that it does or doesn't is irrelevant. AF is not something to base your decision off since the lens will be used with MF 99.9% of the time. It's best to ignore AF entirely in this case.
humm I guess - MF on macro usually makes it better for sure. So you think the Sigman is better than the Canon?
Ditto on the Sigma150. I couldn't decide for a really long time whether or not it would be worth my while (for $1000CAD), but honestly- it's worth every penny. As Vers described, 1:1 just puts in a different league. Shot with my 150:
