Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro

satay16 · 8th April 2006

i am looking at these two lenses right now. the only difference bewteen them is the macro ability. the price of both are the same. so....any drawbacks of the macro version, like slowing focusing or poorer quality? thanks
btw, i am using it on a konica minolta 7D, so no HSM.

GENO · 8th April 2006

I never knew the sigma 70-200mm got marco function?? mmmm 1:4 called marco meh?? only at 1:1 is called a marco lens!

Drudkh · 8th April 2006

Originally Posted by GENO

I never knew the sigma 70-200mm got marco function?? mmmm 1:4 called marco meh?? only at 1:1 is called a marco lens!

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...16&navigator=3

GENO · 8th April 2006

Originally Posted by Drudkh

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...16&navigator=3

!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 : 3.5 ???? for what ??? no point at all.... i rather get a tamron 90mm di marco lens!

Drudkh · 8th April 2006

Originally Posted by GENO

!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 : 3.5 ???? for what ??? no point at all.... i rather get a tamron 90mm di marco lens!

that's you, your problem.
not everyone has the money like you to buy as you like leh.

GENO · 8th April 2006

Originally Posted by Drudkh

that's you, your problem.
not everyone has the money like you to buy as you like leh.

I dont know ley, last time i was also fool by the shop owners.. say every lens can take marco?? what is marco ??

I still believe that when someone is interested in something like marco photography, they should get the right lens... otherwise, the pic will look like.....

I gave up marco anyway..to chim for me..

TME · 9th April 2006

Originally Posted by GENO

I dont know ley, last time i was also fool by the shop owners.. say every lens can take marco?? what is marco ??

I still believe that when someone is interested in something like marco photography, they should get the right lens... otherwise, the pic will look like.....

I gave up marco anyway..to chim for me..

Can always add an extension tube what....

satay16 · 9th April 2006

okok......stop complaning about this lens being a lousy macro lens. but how does it compares with the non-macro version? if the performance is similar, dun see the reason not to get the macro version, since they have the same price.

yeocolin · 9th April 2006

The KM 100mm F2.8 macro lens is cheaper than the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens, so if you can afford to get the Sigma 70-200 and want to use it as a macro, then I strongly suggest you get the macro lens. Alternative and significantly cheaper macro lens include the Tamron 90mm macro.

No point using the 70-200 as macro cos its super bulky and heavy and doesn't achieve true macro function anyway. 1 of the user is right. If you try to get a lens that serves multi purpose, be prepared that it doesn't serve any particular purpose well.

If you want to get a lens for a particular purpose only, then get a dedicated lens and you will enjoy the fruits of your labour.

Ultimately, its more economical to sit down and think about what are you trying to achieve with your lens and then buy it, rather than get general purpose lens unless you are just starting out, then go for the general purpose lens, such as the 28-105mm (for film users) before deciding on which type of photography to sink your money in.

tankm · 9th April 2006

If both are at the same price, get the MACRO version. Buy it not because of the macro feature but because it provide you with closer focusing distance, which is handy for some situation. This is on the assumption that the new lens is better or identical to the older one. Can always ask SIGMA about it and see if you can test both of them side by side.

If you are seriously into MACRO, get a dedicated macro lens.

yeocolin · 9th April 2006

Originally Posted by satay16

okok......stop complaning about this lens being a lousy macro lens. but how does it compares with the non-macro version? if the performance is similar, dun see the reason not to get the macro version, since they have the same price.

The Sigma 70-200 macro F2.8 is so new I'm not sure if any of us has it. However, if you like to correlate to similar non macro vs macro lens, you can compare the KM 100mm macro vs non macro lens. The macro lens is heavier and focus slower due to more glass elements and maybe some other factors. This is true for Nikon and Canon lens too. However, do note that the 100mm macro lens is a true macro lens, ie 1:1.

By estimation, I would guess the Sigma 70-200 macro lens will cost and weigh more than the non macro counterpart. Optical quality? Can't say, but you'll have to wait for some time for the comparison reviews to be out.

If you understand the numbers and lab tests, then just compare the lens charts of both lens. Straightforward and objective comparison.

Agetan · 9th April 2006

Originally Posted by GENO

I never knew the sigma 70-200mm got marco function?? mmmm 1:4 called marco meh?? only at 1:1 is called a marco lens!

By defination, anything from 1:10 to 1:1 or beyond is consider Macro.

1:3.5 is good enough if you don't take macro shots of small insect or bugs. for product shots its ok..

Hart

Flying Dutchmen · 11th April 2006

If you look at the website your can see that both lenses have a different lens construction.
The new lens (with close-up capability) has 18 Elements in 15 Groups and the previous model has 17 Elements in 14 Groups. Therefore at this moment in time, as it is a new lens, we can't say anything about similarity in picture quality.

I am looking also for a lens in this range. Does anyone of you have experience with it?
How come it is less than half the price of the KM one?

dRebelXT · 11th April 2006

This is a nice lens AFAIK. Put on a ET25mm, you will probably get 1/2 mag ratio
on the 200mm end. Not bad isn't it!

blurblock · 11th April 2006

Originally Posted by Agetan

By defination, anything from 1:10 to 1:1 or beyond is consider Macro.

1:3.5 is good enough if you don't take macro shots of small insect or bugs. for product shots its ok..

Hart

hmmm ... I always thought 1:3 - 1:10 is classified as close focus, 1:2 is near macro, only 1:1 to 1:1.5 is classified as Macro..... well I might be wrong

tankm · 11th April 2006

To add more ......for a 1:1 35mm format macro lens, when used on the 5D and 7D DSLR, you actually get larger than 1:1. For those "1:2" 35mm format macro, on the DSLR....it is now closer to "1:1 in APS-C format".

Originally Posted by blurblock

hmmm ... I always thought 1:3 - 1:10 is classified as close focus, 1:2 is near macro, only 1:1 to 1:1.5 is classified as Macro..... well I might be wrong

satay16 · 3rd June 2006

has been about 2 months. anyone experienced the macro version yet? any difference from the non-macro version in quality and focusing speed?

Artosoft · 5th June 2006

Originally Posted by GENO

I never knew the sigma 70-200mm got marco function?? mmmm 1:4 called marco meh?? only at 1:1 is called a marco lens!

Not always.

My old sigma 90mm f2.5 Macro manual focus is 1:2. It is true macro lens.

And, MACRO not MARCO!!!

Regards,
Arto.

satay16 · 8th June 2006

does the 70-200 runs from the body rotating screw, or does it has an internal micro motor?

TME · 8th June 2006

Originally Posted by satay16

does the 70-200 runs from the body rotating screw, or does it has an internal micro motor?

Definitely screw... no 3rd party lens manufacturer has reversed engineered SSM as there was much uncertainty pertaining to KM at that time... maybe we might see more SSM lenses from Sony once they launch a 7D replacement and the 3rd party scene might be more willing to commit to doing similar lenses... in particular Sigma's HSM lenses...

8th April 2006	#1
satay16 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,977	Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro i am looking at these two lenses right now. the only difference bewteen them is the macro ability. the price of both are the same. so....any drawbacks of the macro version, like slowing focusing or poorer quality? thanks btw, i am using it on a konica minolta 7D, so no HSM. Last edited by satay16; 8th June 2006 at 11:00 AM.

8th April 2006	#2
GENO Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Teddy Bear Land Posts: 2,859	Re: Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro I never knew the sigma 70-200mm got marco function?? mmmm 1:4 called marco meh?? only at 1:1 is called a marco lens! __________________ Take both its legs down first, then cuts its tail, next is shoot between its eyes:devil:

9th April 2006	#8
satay16 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,977	Re: Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro okok......stop complaning about this lens being a lousy macro lens. but how does it compares with the non-macro version? if the performance is similar, dun see the reason not to get the macro version, since they have the same price.

9th April 2006	#9
yeocolin Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 812	Re: Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro The KM 100mm F2.8 macro lens is cheaper than the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens, so if you can afford to get the Sigma 70-200 and want to use it as a macro, then I strongly suggest you get the macro lens. Alternative and significantly cheaper macro lens include the Tamron 90mm macro. No point using the 70-200 as macro cos its super bulky and heavy and doesn't achieve true macro function anyway. 1 of the user is right. If you try to get a lens that serves multi purpose, be prepared that it doesn't serve any particular purpose well. If you want to get a lens for a particular purpose only, then get a dedicated lens and you will enjoy the fruits of your labour. Ultimately, its more economical to sit down and think about what are you trying to achieve with your lens and then buy it, rather than get general purpose lens unless you are just starting out, then go for the general purpose lens, such as the 28-105mm (for film users) before deciding on which type of photography to sink your money in. __________________ www.pbase.com/yeocolin www.flickr.com/yeocolin

9th April 2006	#10
tankm Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,619	Re: Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro If both are at the same price, get the MACRO version. Buy it not because of the macro feature but because it provide you with closer focusing distance, which is handy for some situation. This is on the assumption that the new lens is better or identical to the older one. Can always ask SIGMA about it and see if you can test both of them side by side. If you are seriously into MACRO, get a dedicated macro lens.

11th April 2006	#13
Flying Dutchmen New Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 15	Re: Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro If you look at the website your can see that both lenses have a different lens construction. The new lens (with close-up capability) has 18 Elements in 15 Groups and the previous model has 17 Elements in 14 Groups. Therefore at this moment in time, as it is a new lens, we can't say anything about similarity in picture quality. I am looking also for a lens in this range. Does anyone of you have experience with it? How come it is less than half the price of the KM one?

11th April 2006	#14
dRebelXT Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,562	Re: Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro This is a nice lens AFAIK. Put on a ET25mm, you will probably get 1/2 mag ratio on the 200mm end. Not bad isn't it! __________________ My photog website! :) I am AF - A Fool..

3rd June 2006	#17
satay16 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,977	Re: Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro has been about 2 months. anyone experienced the macro version yet? any difference from the non-macro version in quality and focusing speed?

8th June 2006	#19
satay16 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,977	Re: Sigma 70-200mm EX DG macro/non-macro does the 70-200 runs from the body rotating screw, or does it has an internal micro motor?