Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Alternative for Macro

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Central Singapore
    Posts
    317

    Default Alternative for Macro

    Not sure if I should post this here or the consumer's corner forum.

    Anyway, I have a Sigma 80-200mm f2.8. Have been adding a Canon 500D for Macro. Wonder what is the next piece of equipment I should get....a 2xTC or an Extention Tube. The performance of my old Sigma 90mm Macro is not too consistent.

    Any advice from the Macro lover out there?

  2. #2

    Default

    Nobody can advice you unless you inform us what is your requirement.

    What else do you want to achieve that your current setup restricts you? do you want to increase working distance, magnification or more convenience?

    What do you mean that the performance of Sigma 90mm Macro is not too consistent?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Central Singapore
    Posts
    317

    Default

    Thanks,

    Maybe, I should rephrase my question. Which is a better accessory to add onto a 80-200mm f2.8 zoom for macro shots. A 2xTC or a Extention tube?

    My Sigma 90mm Macro is an old lense. It has a rather noisy AF and the barrel extends during focusing (not IF like the newer 105mm). If you are not careful, the lense hood can hit the subject.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belleforte
    Thanks,
    Maybe, I should rephrase my question. Which is a better accessory to add onto a 80-200mm f2.8 zoom for macro shots. A 2xTC or a Extention tube?
    Adding 2x TC to your current setup will increase magnification as this will increase your focal length. Working distance should still be the same at 1/(diopter strength) meter. The drawback is it will degrade your image quality considerably.

    It seems to me that there is a ‘logical conflict’ in using an ext tube + closeup diopter combo. Since ext tube meant for you to focus closer to gain higher magnification, I wonder whether you can ‘override’ the min focusing distance when the 500D is attached. If any of the guys here has an answer, pls share.

    My Sigma 90mm Macro is an old lense. It has a rather noisy AF and the barrel extends during focusing (not IF like the newer 105mm). If you are not careful, the lense hood can hit the subject.
    Even the sigma 105mm barrel extends during focusing and its also noisy. But it works well for me since I normally use the MF and I dont see myself doing panning while insect is flying. (just kidding).
    At its min focusing distance (about 6 inches), the barrel extends the longest. So, how would the barrel touches the subject? unless you still keep on moving closer to the subject while your lens is already saying "stop! I cant focus any longer!". I havent heard of anyone accidentally touching the subject with the lens barrel during focusing.
    Why not you try using the MF of your current sigma 90mm macro, you might enjoy it as it could give more accurate focusing. Marco lens is always the most convenient way to do macro photography. So, why bother with accesories that could make you AF even slower, inaccurate and degrade image quality?

    just my 2 cents
    Last edited by Sgt. Pepper; 5th September 2003 at 01:55 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belleforte
    Thanks,

    Maybe, I should rephrase my question. Which is a better accessory to add onto a 80-200mm f2.8 zoom for macro shots. A 2xTC or a Extention tube?

    My Sigma 90mm Macro is an old lense. It has a rather noisy AF and the barrel extends during focusing (not IF like the newer 105mm). If you are not careful, the lense hood can hit the subject.
    A 2x will magnify ur image size while maintaining the minimum focussing distance, This is useful if the insect is skittish.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Hi Belleforte, can i 'hijack' ur thread a little? Please tell me if you mind, i would gladly remove it.

    Would like to ask,
    Is focussing easier in a dedicated macro lens (sigma 105mm) than a 70-300mm with closeup or with extension tubes with TC?

    Regards!
    Last edited by Wryer; 4th September 2003 at 07:34 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wryer
    Hi Belleforte, can i 'hijack' ur thread a little? Please tell me if you mind, i would gladly remove it.

    Would like to ask,
    Is focussing easier in a dedicated macro lens (sigma 105mm) than a 70-300mm with closeup or with extension tubes with TC?

    Regards!
    Normally you manual focus for macro so AF is not an issue. I would definitely recommend a dedicated macro lens for its sharpness.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcon
    Normally you manual focus for macro so AF is not an issue. I would definitely recommend a dedicated macro lens for its sharpness.
    Thanks Falcon! and of course thanks to Belleforte as well.

    Regards

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Central Singapore
    Posts
    317

    Default

    Hi Wryer,

    I got good results using the Canon 500D on my Sigma 80-200mm f2.8. I agree that focusing using a close up lense is much more difficult than using a dedicate Macro lense.

    If you already have a tele and don't want to invest in another Macro, perhaps a good close-up diopter like the Canon 500D or 250D is a good alternative. I believe they do not reduce the f-stops of the lense like a TC or extension tubes.

  10. #10

    Default

    I moved this thread to "General, Reviews/Previews, Technical Discussions"
    See my Photo Gallery at the Clubsnap

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belleforte
    Hi Wryer,

    I got good results using the Canon 500D on my Sigma 80-200mm f2.8. I agree that focusing using a close up lense is much more difficult than using a dedicate Macro lense.

    If you already have a tele and don't want to invest in another Macro, perhaps a good close-up diopter like the Canon 500D or 250D is a good alternative. I believe they do not reduce the f-stops of the lense like a TC or extension tubes.

    thanks for the input! i appreciate it.

    I am presently using a 300mm with a nikon 6T for macro works. I tried aF and mF, but i find focussing quite tough. Furthermore, optical sharpness and quality is average at best (to me lah, i feel that sharpness is a very impt component in macro). Furthermore, i am struggling to counter handshake at 300mm.

    A question:
    is 105mm (on my 70-300)with my 6T the same as a 105mm sigma? (refering to magnification, i understand the 105mm produces 1:1)

    Thanks all!!

    Regards

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wryer
    thanks for the input! i appreciate it.

    I am presently using a 300mm with a nikon 6T for macro works. I tried aF and mF, but i find focussing quite tough. Furthermore, optical sharpness and quality is average at best (to me lah, i feel that sharpness is a very impt component in macro). Furthermore, i am struggling to counter handshake at 300mm.

    A question:
    is 105mm (on my 70-300)with my 6T the same as a 105mm sigma? (refering to magnification, i understand the 105mm produces 1:1)

    Thanks all!!

    Regards
    I tried 6T with my 300mm before. Its a bit too powerful to handhold. Try 5T or weaker. Otherwise, u may need to depend on tripod more. Alternatively, use it at ard 150mm or less as any shakes are magnified several times at high focal lengths.

    It should give u 1:3 assuming u are focussing at infinity. The 105 macro goes up to ard 13cm close to get 1:1.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xdivider
    I tried 6T with my 300mm before. Its a bit too powerful to handhold. Try 5T or weaker. Otherwise, u may need to depend on tripod more. Alternatively, use it at ard 150mm or less as any shakes are magnified several times at high focal lengths.

    It should give u 1:3 assuming u are focussing at infinity. The 105 macro goes up to ard 13cm close to get 1:1.

    umm...u mean at 300mm plus 6T is only 1:3?

    Regards

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wryer
    umm...u mean at 300mm plus 6T is only 1:3?

    Regards
    You'll be able to get almost 1X (0.9X to be exact) since 6T is about 3+ equivalent.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt. Pepper
    You'll be able to get almost 1X (0.9X to be exact) since 6T is about 3+ equivalent.

    Ohh...so that means it is pretty near to 1:1?

    Aikz.
    using 70-300 at full tele for macro is really killing me to handhold.

    looks like 105mm is the one for me..

    but working distance to achieve 1:1 for 105mm and the 70-300, is it the same?

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wryer
    umm...u mean at 300mm plus 6T is only 1:3?

    Regards
    Nope, 105mm on the 70-300 focussed at infinity should be ard 105/333 = 1/3. means u get 1:3 at ard 33cm away. The sigma 105 macro should get roughly the same at the same distance but it can go all the way to 13cm to get 1:1. U will need a +8 or stronger or use extension to get 1:1 at 105mm on your zoom.
    Last edited by xdivider; 5th September 2003 at 06:00 PM.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Since you already have a close up lens, I vote for the 2X teleconvertor.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •