Alternative for Macro


Status
Not open for further replies.

Belleforte

New Member
Jan 29, 2003
317
0
0
52
Central Singapore
Visit site
#1
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? :think:
 

Jun 30, 2003
1,124
0
0
Visit site
#2
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?
:)
 

Belleforte

New Member
Jan 29, 2003
317
0
0
52
Central Singapore
Visit site
#3
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.
:confused:
 

Jun 30, 2003
1,124
0
0
Visit site
#4
Belleforte said:
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.
:confused:
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 :)
 

xdivider

New Member
Mar 2, 2002
1,484
0
0
Visit site
#5
Belleforte said:
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.
:confused:
A 2x will magnify ur image size while maintaining the minimum focussing distance, This is useful if the insect is skittish.
 

Wryer

New Member
Dec 17, 2002
602
0
0
32
Tampines
Visit site
#6
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! :embrass:
 

Falcon

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,768
0
0
37
#7
Wryer said:
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! :embrass:
Normally you manual focus for macro so AF is not an issue. I would definitely recommend a dedicated macro lens for its sharpness.
 

Wryer

New Member
Dec 17, 2002
602
0
0
32
Tampines
Visit site
#8
Falcon said:
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
 

Belleforte

New Member
Jan 29, 2003
317
0
0
52
Central Singapore
Visit site
#9
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.
 

Wryer

New Member
Dec 17, 2002
602
0
0
32
Tampines
Visit site
#11
Belleforte said:
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
 

xdivider

New Member
Mar 2, 2002
1,484
0
0
Visit site
#12
Wryer said:
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.
 

Wryer

New Member
Dec 17, 2002
602
0
0
32
Tampines
Visit site
#13
xdivider said:
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
 

Jun 30, 2003
1,124
0
0
Visit site
#14
Wryer said:
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.
:)
 

Wryer

New Member
Dec 17, 2002
602
0
0
32
Tampines
Visit site
#15
Sgt. Pepper said:
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?
 

xdivider

New Member
Mar 2, 2002
1,484
0
0
Visit site
#16
Wryer said:
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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom