• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

macro lens

Tula_Montage

Tula_Montage

It's Jager time!
Right I'v been saving for a macro lens for ages now and have decided to go with Sigma.

Now I am in a bit of a twiddle... Which to go for? The 70-300 telephoto zoom lense (which is not actually a dedicated macro lens) or the 105mm macro?

I don't want to limit myself to macro photography as such, so is the 70-300mm more worth wile in regards to what else I can do with it?

Ill be spending quite a lot on it so I need to make the right choice.
 
OR am I better off with the Nikon 55-200mm VR AS-F? Is that capable of decent macro photography? I think my head may explode
 
Ooo or how about the 18-135mm AF-S DX Nikkor?

I am currently using the kit nikkor 18 - 55mm lens, and although it does the job I need to move up a level!
 
I have the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro lens for my Canon. I use it mainly for working outside with the smaller snakes and when I go to the park to photography dragonflies and butterflies. I like it because it has the telephoto reach and the macro all built into one lens.
 
The dragonflys are awesome! Does it take really nice sort of scale perfect close ups? IE how close is too close?
 
Since it is not a "true" macro lens, I find it does have some limitations on getting those high quality extreme close ups on snakes/scales. I like it more for when I cannot to close to a small subject but still want some nice detail.
 
Sigma rules

I have a 50 mm Sigma Macro lens. It's my most favorite lens of all times.

Kleur-02.jpg


This one is out of focus (because I am a bad photographer) but it shows it's capacity as a lens.
Vlieg-01.jpg
 
What kind of camera are you sporting Elle? I'm guessing its a Nikon since you were looking at Nikon lenses. If its a Canon, however, I wouldn't go with the Sigma just because of the quality of the glass. They are good, but if you want a lens that is going to last you and maintain itself well then go for the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. It's pricier, but I've been talking to a professional lately and he says after so many years he won't use anything outside of Nikon or Canon. Now, if you're like me and you're a poor college kid...you're gonna go with the Sigma lol. I don't have the money to drop on a Canon or Nikon. Whatever you get, let us know because I'm getting a new 40D for Christmas and I'm sure I'll be in the market for a new macro lens too :)
 
I purchased a Nikkor AF-S VR Micro 105mm "Macro" lense a while back to accompany my Nikon D80 and have not regretted having spent the money. Seriously, if you truly want to photograph animals in a controlled setting, you can hardly do wrong by getting a fixed lense camera. Sure, there are going to be limitations using a fixed lense such as a Macro lense that do indeed take some getting used to. But the detail....

Here's an example of the amount of detail and clarity:

Here's the original picture resized down to 20% of it's original size:
DSC_2713-resized.jpg


Here's the exact same picture at 100% but cropped:
DSC_2713-cropped.jpg


While some people seem to feel that the VR on a macro lense is pointless and that all macro photography should realistically be done with a tripod, I have found that for my intent and purposes, the VR has proven to be quite a useful feature. Of course that's what makes the lense cost a whole lot more, but it all boils down to how you intend to use your camera/lense.
 
OH DEAR... I am a bit terrified of my new lens! I went with the sigma 105 cause I wanted a dedicated macro lens.

It's "stuck" in a really horrible f32 with awful DOF. I need moreee. The lens is totally manual which is a bit of a shock after working with an auto for so long. So why is it saying "lock lens aperture ring at minimum aperture" whevever I try to change the Fstop. I want to play around with it ie go down to f2.8 but it aint happeneing. Help?

I just want to crawl back to my 18-55mm nikkor!

Heres how awful the DOF is... its not the desired effect im after!

close.png


Its damn near impossible to manually focus in on squirmy wee beaties!
 
Ok, so the sigma 105 is NOT automatically compatible with my D40... Thats not ok.

Looks like I will be sending this pile of pish back. I'm frustrated and I want to smash it and hit it and hate it! ahhhhhh
 
Fixed focus length lenses are something quite different than zoom lenses. I know how the feel was the first time I had my macro lens on my camera. It felt horrible. But now I shoot almost all pictures with this lens. It takes a few hundred photo's to get used to it. And shooting at automatic is not an option really. You need to set apparture values and diafragma. But when you do get the hang of it it will be so much more rewarding compared to using your kit lens. I would say use the lens a few days before sending it back.
 
Thanks Marcel :) I did last night and got some nice shots... they are in the photo section.

In the longrun I suppose it will make me work far harder when it comes to intrequite photography :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top