MACRO 105mm F2.8 EX DG vs ZD 50mm Macro

vendeta · 4th April 2007

I'm thinking of buying a macro lens, have anyone already did a comparison between this two lens? care to share your thoughts on this?

drakon09 · 4th April 2007

The Sigma's twice as long, kinda hard to compare.

vendeta · 4th April 2007

Originally Posted by drakon09

The Sigma's twice as long, kinda hard to compare.

yep hehehehe sorry not to point that one out, how about the optical quality, i got quoted 675.00sgd for the 105mm sigma, it's almost the same price as the zd50mm, i'm thinking of using the lens for portrait shot also, would the 105mm sigma be suited for potrait shots vs the 50mm zuiko?

I did some research for the zd 50mm, and the review was good, i'm thinking of getting the 50mm but makes me think twice coz of the price when compare to a 105mm sigma.

tomcat · 4th April 2007

Both these lenses are optically very sharp.
Because of the difference in focal length, they tend to compliment each other rather than replace one another.
If you are going to be taking portraits (human I presume), shooting with the 105mm would require that you stand much further back from the subject than with the 50mm. Because of this, you would have to have steady hands... or shoot in very well-lit environments (to achieve fast shutter speeds)... or use a tripod... as hand shakes would be magnified more with the 105mm than with the 50mm.
Then again, there would be less perspective distortion wth the 105mm than with the 50mm and the face of your subject might look slightly better shot with the 105mm than with the 50mm.

OlyFlyer · 5th April 2007

If I am not wrong, the Sigma is 1:1 lens while the ED50 is 0.5:1. The ED50 is not a real macro in the sense of magnification, only in the sense of optical quality. I have no idea how good those two are since I can not compare those, I only have the ED50. I would think the biggest advantage of the Sigma is the distance at which you get 1:1 magnification. With the Oly you can only get 1:1 by adding the EX-25 which further reduces the distance between the camera and the subject. I would say the ED50 f2.0 is a very good lens but may not be optimal for insects at 1:1 or more. Insects get scared if you get too close.

For portraits I think the 50mm is better. With the Sigma you need to be too far, unless it is just the face you are interested in. It is really difficult to compare the two because of the focal length differences.

Dylan · 4th May 2007

I've just got myself the ED50mm and I love it so far. Images taken of people's skin tone are natural even without flash indoors. Focusing is pretty fast compared to the lenses I have so far. Though you are right that it is not really a 'macro' lens since it gives a magnification factor of 0.5 and that adding the ex25 will shorten your distance from subject, I'm just so happy with the lens since this is my first macro lens.

Perhaps I can only feedback more when I head out to try shooting some land shots and when I have the chance to bring this baby underwater. Will keep you guys posted for those considering getting macro lenses.

tunghk · 4th May 2007

I have not tried the sigma but has the ED50.. If I were you, would get the Zuiko for portrait shots as mentioned by Dylan, the skin tone and bokeh id really good, not to mention if you take natural light or indoor and handheld, the shorter focal length and f2 really helps alot.

vendeta · 5th May 2007

Originally Posted by Dylan

I've just got myself the ED50mm and I love it so far. Images taken of people's skin tone are natural even without flash indoors. Focusing is pretty fast compared to the lenses I have so far. Though you are right that it is not really a 'macro' lens since it gives a magnification factor of 0.5 and that adding the ex25 will shorten your distance from subject, I'm just so happy with the lens since this is my first macro lens.

Perhaps I can only feedback more when I head out to try shooting some land shots and when I have the chance to bring this baby underwater. Will keep you guys posted for those considering getting macro lenses.

thanks for the reply I think will get the ZD 50mm, I tried this lens from the 2nd kopi session and I was really impress with it, beside I think my budget is not yet enough for the 11-22mm hehehe*thinking of getting this too*

4th April 2007	#1
vendeta Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 251	MACRO 105mm F2.8 EX DG vs ZD 50mm Macro I'm thinking of buying a macro lens, have anyone already did a comparison between this two lens? care to share your thoughts on this?

4th April 2007	#2
drakon09 Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,690	Re: MACRO 105mm F2.8 EX DG vs ZD 50mm Macro The Sigma's twice as long, kinda hard to compare.

4th April 2007	#4
tomcat Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 3,463	Re: MACRO 105mm F2.8 EX DG vs ZD 50mm Macro Both these lenses are optically very sharp. Because of the difference in focal length, they tend to compliment each other rather than replace one another. If you are going to be taking portraits (human I presume), shooting with the 105mm would require that you stand much further back from the subject than with the 50mm. Because of this, you would have to have steady hands... or shoot in very well-lit environments (to achieve fast shutter speeds)... or use a tripod... as hand shakes would be magnified more with the 105mm than with the 50mm. Then again, there would be less perspective distortion wth the 105mm than with the 50mm and the face of your subject might look slightly better shot with the 105mm than with the 50mm. __________________ Fish Pics:http://www.pbase.com/pschia/oddballs IR Pics:http://www.pbase.com/pschia/infra_red

5th April 2007	#5
OlyFlyer Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe, Sweden, outside Lund Posts: 2,038	Re: MACRO 105mm F2.8 EX DG vs ZD 50mm Macro If I am not wrong, the Sigma is 1:1 lens while the ED50 is 0.5:1. The ED50 is not a real macro in the sense of magnification, only in the sense of optical quality. I have no idea how good those two are since I can not compare those, I only have the ED50. I would think the biggest advantage of the Sigma is the distance at which you get 1:1 magnification. With the Oly you can only get 1:1 by adding the EX-25 which further reduces the distance between the camera and the subject. I would say the ED50 f2.0 is a very good lens but may not be optimal for insects at 1:1 or more. Insects get scared if you get too close. For portraits I think the 50mm is better. With the Sigma you need to be too far, unless it is just the face you are interested in. It is really difficult to compare the two because of the focal length differences.

4th May 2007	#6
Dylan Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 641	Re: MACRO 105mm F2.8 EX DG vs ZD 50mm Macro I've just got myself the ED50mm and I love it so far. Images taken of people's skin tone are natural even without flash indoors. Focusing is pretty fast compared to the lenses I have so far. Though you are right that it is not really a 'macro' lens since it gives a magnification factor of 0.5 and that adding the ex25 will shorten your distance from subject, I'm just so happy with the lens since this is my first macro lens. Perhaps I can only feedback more when I head out to try shooting some land shots and when I have the chance to bring this baby underwater. Will keep you guys posted for those considering getting macro lenses. __________________ http://www.divebooks.net Olympus E-3, E-1, E-500

4th May 2007	#7
tunghk Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upp Bukit Timah Posts: 178	Re: MACRO 105mm F2.8 EX DG vs ZD 50mm Macro I have not tried the sigma but has the ED50.. If I were you, would get the Zuiko for portrait shots as mentioned by Dylan, the skin tone and bokeh id really good, not to mention if you take natural light or indoor and handheld, the shorter focal length and f2 really helps alot.