Macro lens

[Eyesthruthelens]

Minolta 100mm macro lens is expensive..
This Sigma lens is at a reasonable price.. Anyone is using this lens?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-105mm-EX-L...QQcmdZViewItem

[apchoo]

Also check out the Tamron SP AF90mm F2.8 Di macro lens. Very sharp and reasonably priced as well. Very happy with it.

[BBTM]

I tried a tamron 90 macro. Minimium to get 1:1 is at 33cm. Quite close to the object n if u want to shoot insect, I think 180mm (but F3.5) is more suitable as it is from 47cm. KM 100mm is out for me, too ex and closest is 30+ also. I going for Sigma or Tamaron, abt the same price as KM 100.

[Ben1223]

Originally Posted by Eyesthruthelens Minolta 100mm macro lens is expensive.. This Sigma lens is at a reasonable price.. Anyone is using this lens? http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-105mm-EX-L...QQcmdZViewItem

I use one but it's the only macro lens I own so I can't comment on whether it's better than others. I use it mainly for portraits. It's good value for money. Both the Sigma and the Tamron are highly recommended.
Here's a sample
http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=155572

[Drudkh]

Save a bit more, get the Minolta one. Colours are much better as the optics are still way better than the 3rd party lens manufacturers.

[BBTM]

Originally Posted by Drudkh Save a bit more, get the Minolta one. Colours are much better as the optics are still way better than the 3rd party lens manufacturers.

Not a bit, almost DOUBLE! Help Help!

[grado]

I would suggest getting a 2nd hand Minolta 100mm macro or the Tamron 90mm f2.8 DI macro. If you have more cash, the Tamron 180mm f3.5 macro should be fine. Depends on your usuage, what you like to take. I am not a fan of Sigma's 105mm macro due to its ugly bokeh when subjected to messy backgrounds or highlights...

[BBTM]

Originally Posted by grado I would suggest getting a 2nd hand Minolta 100mm macro or the Tamron 90mm f2.8 DI macro. If you have more cash, the Tamron 180mm f3.5 macro should be fine. Depends on your usuage, what you like to take. I am not a fan of Sigma's 105mm macro due to its ugly bokeh when subjected to messy backgrounds or highlights...

Tamron 180mm design also look like PRO.
Price wise, same as KM 100mm Macro.
On top of that, can use as a normal lens for street?

[Drudkh]

Originally Posted by BBTM Tamron 180mm design also look like PRO. Price wise, same as KM 100mm Macro. On top of that, can use as a normal lens for street?

Get Minolta one, 100mm f/2.8 or 200mm f/4 G.

[apchoo]

Originally Posted by Drudkh Save a bit more, get the Minolta one. Colours are much better as the optics are still way better than the 3rd party lens manufacturers.

Fully agree ... if you can afford and justify the added COST . Bought the Tamron for SGD530. KM 100mm F2.8 (D) macro was > SGD1,000. People were buying non-(D) model from Hart for AUD850 !

If you think you'll do a lot of macro, by all means save for KM 100. Me, I'm just beginner in macro, can't justify big price tag .

[BBTM]

Originally Posted by Drudkh Get Minolta one, 100mm f/2.8 or 200mm f/4 G.

Brother Don, too ex la. You think I print $ one har? Get a Tamron 180mm F3.5, burn one pocket. Buy a KM 85 F1.4 OR fisheye, burn another. Enough for next year, maybe add a 50 F1.4mm in the end. Other lens, got to wait liao.
Still got PC n scanner to go.

[BBTM]

Originally Posted by apchoo Fully agree ... if you can afford and justify the added COST . Bought the Tamron for SGD530. KM 100mm F2.8 (D) macro was > SGD1,000. People were buying non-(D) model from Hart for AUD850 ! If you think you'll do a lot of macro, by all means save for KM 100. Me, I'm just beginner in macro, can't justify big price tag .

As long not insect, a normal macro will do. But if it is for insects and you want 1:1, it is best to get a 150mm and above as their minimium forcusing is nearly 50 cm, quite a "safe" distance. IMO

[BBTM]

Hee Hee....

Done a mini home work on macro.

If you getting the KM 100mm, the minimium focus for 1:1 is 1.1 inch! Which is super near to the object and it wasn't ideal for insects.

But if u getting either the Sigma 180mm or Tamron 180mm, the end of the lens is at least ard 30cm from target for 1:1. With the lens length and camera body, you are standing almost 50cm from the target. Therefore, insects hardly detect you and you could capture it with 1:1!

Please correct my home work if I am wrong, esp those macro guru.

Edit : My comment only apply to SLR (film). DSLR might even have a longer distance.

[Drudkh]

focusing distance has no difference between SLR/DSLR. only DSLR will give you a 1.5X magnification.

[fastshot]

Originally Posted by BBTM Hee Hee.... Done a mini home work on macro. If you getting the KM 100mm, the minimium focus for 1:1 is 1.1 inch! Which is super near to the object and it wasn't ideal for insects. But if u getting either the Sigma 180mm or Tamron 180mm, the end of the lens is at least ard 30cm from target for 1:1. With the lens length and camera body, you are standing almost 50cm from the target. Therefore, insects hardly detect you and you could capture it with 1:1! Please correct my home work if I am wrong, esp those macro guru. Edit : My comment only apply to SLR (film). DSLR might even have a longer distance.

Not True. The KM100 macro closest focusing distance is about 30cm from object to sensor plane. Same should apply regardless of DSLR or film SLR.

[BBTM]

Originally Posted by fastshot Not True. The KM100 macro closest focusing distance is about 30cm from object to sensor plane. Same should apply regardless of DSLR or film SLR.

But don't you forget the KM 100mm lens will extend to a certain length where else the Sigma or Tamron is fix.

DCA, you extend your Tamron, how long is the lens?

[Agetan]

All I can say is KM 100mm f2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest lens that I got...

Absolutely love it...

Hart

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Originally Posted by BBTM But don't you forget the KM 100mm lens will extend to a certain length where else the Sigma or Tamron is fix. DCA, you extend your Tamron, how long is the lens?

hmm dunno... u wanna try again?

somehow... i felt that Drudkh machiam dio TOTO but din tell us.. the way he post... makes it sound like all the lens is cheap... hmm... maybe he already have 100, 200mm macro in his dry cabi...

[Drudkh]

Originally Posted by Del_CtrlnoAlt hmm dunno... u wanna try again? somehow... i felt that Drudkh machiam dio TOTO but din tell us.. the way he post... makes it sound like all the lens is cheap... hmm... maybe he already have 100, 200mm macro in his dry cabi...

if i tio TOTO, I already buy 1Dmk2N + 400 f/2.8 L IS.

[MadAnt]

Hi, I have the sigma 105 marco ex.

The build of the lens is of good quality to me
Some people might find the ex coating over the lens wearing off after much use, mine hasn't after nearly 4 years. ( Ok, so I had 2 years of hibernation )
Min focus distance ~30cm
Length of lens at 1:1 ~15cm
Length of lens focus at infinity ~10cm


Quality?
I don't know if it is good enough for you, but it is good enough for me.
Then again, I am not that critical a user.


Is the minolta 100mm worth twice the price over this lens?
To ME, no, I rather use the extra 600 for an extra flash ( or even ring flash ), extension tubes, teleconvertors, good tripod etc. ( and if it were still the film era, 60+ boxs of velvia ).
It might be worth it to you and if you think you it is worth it for you, why not?


I have some samples I took a few days ago.
Someone can tell me if this is considered bad bokeh? I still can't really tell what is bad bokeh other than the double lines in the out-of-focused highlights.
Note : The lens has under gone a servicing not long ago for fungus attack
Might have used extension tube or teleconvertor.

1#


2#


3#


4#