Which Sigma Macro lens?


Status
Not open for further replies.

merelyok

Senior Member
Jun 7, 2008
2,051
3
38
merelyok.tumblr.com
#1
Im quite confused with the different focal lengths.

Originally i wanted to get the 105mm one but i'm starting to wonder if its abit too much.

Would the 50mm Macro lens be more suited for shots that involve subjects such as flowers or even portraits? Or would the 105mm one be a more worthy investment given it's longer reach?

thanks for the help!
 

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#2
Depending on what you want to shoot. For products shoot or flowers, a 50mm will be able to do the job. For flowers/insects, you can consider the 70mm or 105mm. If you intend to take butterflies, a 150/180mm would be required.
 

merelyok

Senior Member
Jun 7, 2008
2,051
3
38
merelyok.tumblr.com
#3
Depending on what you want to shoot. For products shoot or flowers, a 50mm will be able to do the job. For flowers/insects, you can consider the 70mm or 105mm. If you intend to take butterflies, a 150/180mm would be required.
Thanks!

can it be argued that the 70/105mm lens is more versatile then?
 

Apr 15, 2007
106
0
0
East
#4
for taking still life where u can go very near without actually disturbing the subject, the sigma 50mm f2.8 is the champion macro lens to go for. it can go up to 1:1 ratio.
 

lastboltnut

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2006
4,528
0
0
Where the wind blows...
#6
I have a Sigma 50mm f2.8 1:1 Micro. I am loving it. I use it to double up as portrait to shoot my son over the dinning table, food shots and even my wife's portrait. I don't shoot insects, so its really good for my application. If you buy longer lens, you cannot shoot portrait over dinning table.:)

Just my applications on this lens.
 

merelyok

Senior Member
Jun 7, 2008
2,051
3
38
merelyok.tumblr.com
#7
okkkk!

now im even more confused. Let's say i already have the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and the Canon 17-40mm f/4.0 L. Which sigma lens is more worth getting? sigh. confusing.
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#8
Must it be a Sigma?

Look, you have to state your main needs, if not everyone will just throw out what they find to be ideal for whatever their purposes are, as you have already observed so far in the discussion.

Let me attempt to break down what's been said so far:

50mm / 70mm: shorter focal length good for subjects that are not disturbed when you are close, likely to be non-moving subjects, such as food, flowers etc.

105mm: in-between. Not too bad for most applications, but a bit too long for casual food photography. May be too short for sensitive critters (unless you are a very stealthy shooter, and I've heard of a few here on CS).

150mm / 180mm: long, definitely too long for food, and probably flowers too, unless you intend to be standing quite a distance from the flowers. Good for more sensitive insects because you don't have to get so close to achieve 1:1 magnification.
 

merelyok

Senior Member
Jun 7, 2008
2,051
3
38
merelyok.tumblr.com
#9
Must it be a Sigma?

Look, you have to state your main needs, if not everyone will just throw out what they find to be ideal for whatever their purposes are, as you have already observed so far in the discussion.

Let me attempt to break down what's been said so far:

50mm / 70mm: shorter focal length good for subjects that are not disturbed when you are close, likely to be non-moving subjects, such as food, flowers etc.

105mm: in-between. Not too bad for most applications, but a bit too long for casual food photography. May be too short for sensitive critters (unless you are a very stealthy shooter, and I've heard of a few here on CS).

150mm / 180mm: long, definitely too long for food, and probably flowers too, unless you intend to be standing quite a distance from the flowers. Good for more sensitive insects because you don't have to get so close to achieve 1:1 magnification.
Thanks Calebk.

My main concern here is budget; being a poor undergrad.

My main subjects would most probably be flowers, with the lens being used for the occasional portrait shot. That being said, i think i can most likely rule the 105mm out. I was worried that i might need the 105mm for certain shots that the 50/70mm can't pull off ( sensitive critters as you so aptly describe! ) But i guess i can't be so greedy in wanting everything in a single set of lens.

It would seem the 50/70mm glass is more suited for me, depending on whichever is cheaper, and i could always add the 105mm in the near future..
 

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#11
Thanks Calebk.

My main concern here is budget; being a poor undergrad.

My main subjects would most probably be flowers, with the lens being used for the occasional portrait shot. That being said, i think i can most likely rule the 105mm out. I was worried that i might need the 105mm for certain shots that the 50/70mm can't pull off ( sensitive critters as you so aptly describe! ) But i guess i can't be so greedy in wanting everything in a single set of lens.

It would seem the 50/70mm glass is more suited for me, depending on whichever is cheaper, and i could always add the 105mm in the near future..
The 70mm would be good then. While taking flowers, it allows you to take some insects which you can find on your way too. Sharing a couple of pictures taken by this lens. (Pardon my newbie skill)



 

mckenzy

New Member
Feb 14, 2005
656
0
0
#12
flowers?

50mm can already bah... insects different story... maybe chicken heart like me will get at LEAST a 150mm!!! :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom