some advice needed please

shazbah

Active Member
Hi all
I am the owner of a canon Eos 550D and am currently at college doing a photography course so i am still learning how to use my camera. My birthday is in a few weeks time and i would like a macro lens. It doesnt need to be top of the range just about middle. I have a marine tank and love taking close ups of my corals. I have been looking at a couple on Ebay and as i said i'm still learning so could someone tell me which is the better of these two lenses
Sigma 28-70mm lens f/2.8 EX DG for Canon EOS on eBay (end time 30-Jan-11 18:46:19 GMT)

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens on eBay (end time 30-Jan-11 19:48:26 GMT)

Is it the 17-70mm or the 28-70mm as i say i am still new to all this
Thanks Sharon
 

Pirate!!

Banned
I have the Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro. Excellent lens, though not a true macro, you can get very close to your subject. If you want a true macro, go for the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 AF Di 1:1 Macro.

I would opt for the Tamron. It's blindingly good and tack sharp. Dedicated macro, excellent for portraits, focus limiter, superb colour rendition and is as about as good as it gets in the macro department (there are one or two others).

Having both the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 17-70mm DC, both are 'keeper' lenses . . they won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The Sigma 17-70mm DC is a perfect as a kit lens replacement.
 
Last edited:

weetsie

Well-known Member
both of those lenses are general zoom lenses that have a short minimum focus distance so can be used for macro and will give you roughly half the magnification 0.5x or 1:2 of a dedicated 1:1 macro lens.

you probably wont need a 1:1 magnification for coral photos but one thing that might be an issue is distance to subject, with a 70mm lens even for 1:2 you need to be about 7" away from from the subject, if the closest you can get to a piece of coral without getting your lens wet is 16" you will only get around 1:5 magnification.

so if distance to subject is an issue you need more focal length, something like a 70-300 macro which will give a 1:2 macro at roughly 40"
 

shazbah

Active Member
Thanks for the info guys. The trouble with everything in life is the price. I only have £300 so i can only get what i can afford in my budget. I am also looking at a canon 75-300mm this is also confusing as you have mark 1,2 and 3 (well i think thats what it means) and also i would presume it's better to get the one with image stabilizer on it and what is the better out of the 2 DC or USM. I,m just looking for a nice telephoto lens
Thanks Sharon
 

weetsie

Well-known Member
Thanks for the info guys. The trouble with everything in life is the price. I only have £300 so i can only get what i can afford in my budget. I am also looking at a canon 75-300mm this is also confusing as you have mark 1,2 and 3 (well i think thats what it means) and also i would presume it's better to get the one with image stabilizer on it and what is the better out of the 2 DC or USM. I,m just looking for a nice telephoto lens
Thanks Sharon

DC is a sigma propaganda
USM is ultrasonic motor, two type ring and micro motor, ring is better but both are fast and quite
HSM is the sigma equivalent of ring USM
 

shotokan101

Banned

HelloMoto

Member
If you want a macro lens try for a second hand Canon 60mm like this:

www.mpbphotographic.co.uk - Used Secondhand Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro

Or there is the Tokina 100mm:

www.mpbphotographic.co.uk - Used Secondhand Tokina 100mm F/2.8 AT-X Macro - Canon EF Fit

Or the Tamron 90mm:

www.mpbphotographic.co.uk - Used Secondhand Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro, Canon EF Fit

Or if you feel flush there is the Canon 100mm:

www.mpbphotographic.co.uk - Used Secondhand Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

Sigma also does a 105mm Macro that has favourable reviews and can usually be found second hand sub £300. The great thing with the macro lens is you can use it for macro and as a very sharp portrait lens. Have you also considered extension tubes?
 

weetsie

Well-known Member
short macro lenses might be a problem if he cant get close enough, if the subject is 10" away a the MP-E 65mm wont give as much magnification as one of the sigma lenses he linked too.
 

shazbah

Active Member
Thanks guys now you've really got me confused. I will be taking the pics in front of a piece of glass and the tank is 18 inches in depth so it could be that i am taking pics of one coral that is say 2 inches behind the glass or it could be a coral at the back of the tank that is 16 inches away. Could you possibly narrow it down to about 2 or 3 lenses that i could get that would be okay to use in the above situation and that would give me the closest pic possible for around £250-300.
Is this lens really any good for macro as it's so cheap??
Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD Macro lens - Jessops
Thanks Sharon
 

shazbah

Active Member
Is this a big improvement on the other ones i was looking at??
Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Lens For Canon AF NEW!
Sorry to be such a pain
Sharon
 

weetsie

Well-known Member
it depends how much magnification you need, if you are taking photos of fist size peices of coral then 1:2 is plenty of magnification.

if you want to take closeups of the surface of the coral then a 1:1 lens at double the magnification might be desirable but you are not going to achive 1:1 macro at 16" with a 60mm lens so if you do want 1:1 macro go for the longest lens you can aford

i would of thought 1:2 would be plenty though

attachment.php



pic is the tamron 70-300mm at 1:2, its slightly out of focus but you get the idea, the bit on the left is a 100% crop.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0069[1].jpg
    IMG_0069[1].jpg
    104 KB · Views: 90

shotokan101

Banned
it depends how much magnification you need, if you are taking photos of fist size peices of coral then 1:2 is plenty of magnification.

if you want to take closeups of the surface of the coral then a 1:1 lens at double the magnification might be desirable but you are not going to achive 1:1 macro at 16" with a 60mm lens so if you do want 1:1 macro go for the longest lens you can aford

i would of thought 1:2 would be plenty though

attachment.php




pic is the tamron 70-300mm at 1:2, its slightly out of focus but you get the idea, the bit on the left is a 100% crop.

My logic exactly Ryan - that's why I suggested the Tammie :cool:

Jim
 

shazbah

Active Member
Hi all and thanks for your patience
I've decided to go for a 1.1 macro lens either a 90mm or a 100mm. I will scrap the idea of a 70mm. It's very difficult when you know what kind of shots you want but don,t know what lens you need to achieve this.
Hellomoto thanks for the link and yes the third picture down is the kind of close ups i would like to achieve
Taking macro pictures of coral in fish tank - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum
Thanks Sharon
 

shazbah

Active Member
Many thanks to you all for your input and a very last stupid question. When you say go for the longest lens i can afford does that mean the higher the number the better ie 90mm is better than 70mm. I know your laughin your heads of now but i have to be sure before i make a purchase. Ive just been looking and there doesn't seem to be much price difference in the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro SLR Lens - Canon EOS Fit and the Tamron 90mm
Sorry to be a pain guys:blush:
Sharon
 

shotokan101

Banned
Many thanks to you all for your input and a very last stupid question. When you say go for the longest lens i can afford does that mean the higher the number the better ie 90mm is better than 70mm. I know your laughin your heads of now but i have to be sure before i make a purchase. Ive just been looking and there doesn't seem to be much price difference in the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro SLR Lens - Canon EOS Fit and the Tamron 90mm
Sorry to be a pain guys:blush:
Sharon

"Yes" as in general the shorter the lens the closer to the front element of the lens the subject needs to be to acheive max. magnification - which of course can cause problems - e.g. not disturbing insects on flowers with a 60mm lens up close to them :)

Don't forget when reading lens spects the min focus distance usually refers to distance from the camera sensor (inside the body) and NOT from the front of the lens ;)

JIm
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Sky Glass, Epson Laser Projectors plus Home Cinema Subwoofers and More…
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom