• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Macro lens decisions (1 Viewer)

Tim Taylor

Tim Taylor

work in progress
I'd like to have a go at macro photography with a 1:1 lens on my 30D and can't make up my mind which lens to get. I'd like to be able to stand a little way off so I don't scare off my target and I feel that a lens that didn't change length would be good. The candidates that I've thought of are the Canon 100 and 180 and the sigma 150 and 180. The Canon 100 would seem to have a rather close working distance but Aki's superb shots with it make it hard to dismiss! The Canon 180 is amazing in GPS's hands but it's pricey and I heard AF is slow. The Sigma 150 I've heard can have probs with front focus and the Sigma 180 I've not heard much about.

Any thoughts, links, (offers of free lenses B :) ) very welcome.

Thanks

Tim
 
iv never come across reading about front focus with the sig 150 its always got great review's and many love the extra working disdanc,
if was was into macro it would be my first choice .
you could always test it as soon as it arives and extrange if it does FF.
Rob
 
Thanks Rob. I guess with any lens, one or two may have probs and on the web that sort of thing can easily appear out of proportion. I've certainly seen a lot of good reviews and pictures too.
 
I have just got the Canon 100 and out in the field I am using it with a 1.4 tc to allow a longer working distance - IQ with a tc is superb.
 
Roy C said:
I have just got the Canon 100 and out in the field I am using it with a 1.4 tc to allow a longer working distance - IQ with a tc is superb.
Click to expand...

Hi Roy Do you use a tripod with this lens and converter, or hand hold it?
Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Tim Taylor said:
I'd like to have a go at macro photography with a 1:1 lens on my 30D and can't make up my mind which lens to get. I'd like to be able to stand a little way off so I don't scare off my target and I feel that a lens that didn't change length would be good. The candidates that I've thought of are the Canon 100 and 180 and the sigma 150 and 180. The Canon 100 would seem to have a rather close working distance but Aki's superb shots with it make it hard to dismiss! The Canon 180 is amazing in GPS's hands but it's pricey and I heard AF is slow. The Sigma 150 I've heard can have probs with front focus and the Sigma 180 I've not heard much about.

Any thoughts, links, (offers of free lenses B :) ) very welcome.

Thanks

Tim
Click to expand...

Hi Tim
I have the canon 100 on a 30D and it is a great lens.
All of my macro shots are hand held with this setup,and had lots of good results.
I think for the larger lenes a tripod is a must.
Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Roy and Wildman. I have to say (hangs head in shame) that I detest using a tripod but it might be worth it to get good macros. I like the idea of using a TC with the 100 to get the extra range so maybe that's the way to go.
 
Tim, I don't know if you're particularly after a proper macro lens, but it may be worth considering adding extension tubes to your 100-400mm - it makes for pretty good macro photos and has the added benefits IS and of being able to use it at a greater distance from the subject. I only use it hand held.

A few examples on this Gallery search link - Canon 20D+100-400mm+extension tube

A full set of auto-tubes cost £50-£80 secondhand or new - the 20mm and 30mm being the most useful.
 
Tim, here are some shots taken with the Canon 100 + 1.4 tc. They were all taken in a homemade light box and with a tripod but I think they show the usability of a tc with the lens.
BTW the flower in the first shot was less than 1" long.
 

Attachments

  • flower.jpg
    flower.jpg
    158.1 KB · Views: 125
  • phone.jpg
    phone.jpg
    192.6 KB · Views: 105
  • tip.jpg
    tip.jpg
    108 KB · Views: 114
  • sharpener.jpg
    sharpener.jpg
    178 KB · Views: 110
IanF said:
Tim, I don't know if you're particularly after a proper macro lens, but it may be worth considering adding extension tubes to your 100-400mm - it makes for pretty good macro photos and has the added benefits IS and of being able to use it at a greater distance from the subject. I only use it hand held.

A few examples on this Gallery search link - Canon 20D+100-400mm+extension tube

A full set of auto-tubes cost £50-£80 secondhand or new - the 20mm and 30mm being the most useful.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ian - your pictures are superb! I've been playing around with a 21mm extension tube and my 24-105mm lens and haven't liked it at all so I must have a go with the 100-400mm and extension tube. However, I'd like more magnification and more light so I think I'll have to go down the macro route to achieve it.
 
Roy C said:
Tim, here are some shots taken with the Canon 100 + 1.4 tc. They were all taken in a homemade light box and with a tripod but I think they show the usability of a tc with the lens.
BTW the flower in the first shot was less than 1" long.
Click to expand...

Those are great results Roy - I'll certainly give the 100mm serious consideration.
 
Sigma 150mm handheld.

I got the Sigma 150mm f2.8 for the large aperture and the extra reach and it is true that with natural light a tripod is pretty much a must, but then I reckon that's the case with a 100mm lens as well. After some experimentation I found that the 30D built in flash works pretty well with the lens at f16 or f22 and a shutter speed of 250th in manual mode and I was able to get some very pleasing shots of various flies (fast moving and easily spooked). Now I have a 580 EX II which with a diffuser provides sufficient light to produce a more natural effect than the built in flash. With this set up I have no need for a tripod and I'm more than happy with the results............now I just need a 5D body:eat: .
True the 100mm lenses are lighter and more compact but the extra working distance that the 150mm gives is very useful for me when taking pictures of small insects.
 
I have used a sigma 105mm in the past, which was a good lens, but had a very close working distance at 1:1. I still have it, but now use a Tamron 180 f3.5 for almost all my macro stuff. For the size lens, it is quite light, and can be handheld. (Though as a rule I prefer tripods for macro unless I'm chasing flighty insects!)
The image quality is fine, although with the longer focal length there is a correspondingly shallower depth of field at a given apeture.
If working close to your subject isnt a problem, the tamron 90mm macro gets very good reviews.
 
Thanks Gordon. While the background blur looks fantastic with 180mm macro lenses and the extra working distance is useful, I'm concerned about the small DOF and extra weight so I've ordered the Sigma 150mm. I'll post some feedback when I've got it.
 
Depth of field isn't that much different whichever focal length you use if you keep the size of the subject the same in the frame as the extra working distance with the longer lenses cancels out some of the shallow D O F problems. Perspective will be different, though.
 
Tim Taylor said:
I'll post some feedback when I've got it.
Click to expand...

Well I've had the lens for a couple of weeks (Sigma 150mm macro) and I'm very pleased. I find the working distance is OK although for very skittish beasties I'd need to add in a TC (not tried yet). I love the sharpness and the quality of background blur. The speed of focus is fine - it's inevitably slower than with my canon lenses but I think that's mainly because it's a macro lens and presumably has finer adjustment as a result. Any issues I have with the process of using the lens relate to my reluctance to use a tripod with the resulting difficulty in achieving tight focus with hand wobble. I can see that the attractive slightly rubbery matt black finish could be easily damaged but that is a well known aspect of these lenses and I was expecting it.

Links to a couple of my pics here and here and here.

They're all a bit 'green' but they were in woodland - it's not the lens. ;)

Cheers

Tim
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

C
I've got a Canon R7 and need to update my lenses
Replies
15
Views
1K
Barred Wobbler
Barred Wobbler
BenjiS
Budget Canon lens
Replies
8
Views
1K
nikitasius
N
Arbu
EOS RP with EF 100-400mm lens
Replies
3
Views
765
pdwinter
pdwinter
Evan Atkinson
Will this lens+extender AF on this camera body?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Mike-P
M
flossiepip
M50 for bird!
Replies
3
Views
1K
njlarsen
njlarsen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top