Macro Lens question

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I am interested in getting a macro lens for my canon 20d, and I think the canon
macro is a little expensive.

I saw the Tamron (SP AF180MM F/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro ($700)) and Sigma
(APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX IF HSM ($600)) but I am not sure how good these
lenses are.

Can anyone offer any feedback on the lenses?

Thanks.

Nath Kaplan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

nk wrote:

> I am interested in getting a macro lens for my canon 20d, and I think
> the canon macro is a little expensive.
>
> I saw the Tamron (SP AF180MM F/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro ($700)) and Sigma
> (APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX IF HSM ($600)) but I am not sure how good
> these lenses are.
>
> Can anyone offer any feedback on the lenses?

1) A friend of mine has the Sigma that you mention and he is quite happy
with it. The lens is very well built. I've seen his projected slides
from it and his happiness is well warranted.

2) The Canon 180 has a less than spectacular rating at
photodo of 3.9 / 5.
(100mm macros such as the Tamron 90 /2.8 , Minolta Maxxum 100 /2.8,
Leica 100 /2.8 are up in the 4.5 on 5 range).
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF18035LMACR.gif

3) The Sigma is not rated at photo.com, unfortunately for comparison.
(Always best to compare at the same place where the same measuement
setup has been used)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/_lenses! [...] gif&name2=
Is the Sigma graph, but it's not clear
* what the red and green lines are (10 lp/mm + 20 lp/mm ???)
* what aperture was it shot at?
* how much smoothing has been put on the graph.

Never trust OEM graphs ... the engineers have selected a 'winner' and
gamed it to the max.

Having said that, for $100 I would go with the Canon lens.

Having said all of the above, consider the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro which
is very good and not a bad portrait lens either. (Not rated at
photodo.com either.

Take a gander at www.photozone.de for both magazine compilation ratings
and user test scores. Caveat Lector.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

IMKen wrote:
> I only used the Sigma for a couple weeks
> and replaced them with Nikon glass.
> Both were soft and off color.
> That was a $1000 experiment that went bad.
>
> Ken

Which 'both' were soft and off colour?

Guy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"nk" <nbkaplan@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:GiAbe.17633$V02.5944@fe08.lga...
>I am interested in getting a macro lens for my canon 20d, and I think the
>canon macro is a little expensive.
>
> I saw the Tamron (SP AF180MM F/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro ($700)) and Sigma
> (APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX IF HSM ($600)) but I am not sure how good these
> lenses are.
>
> Can anyone offer any feedback on the lenses?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nath Kaplan
>
You could have a play quite cheaply, get a set of extension tubes and get a
50mm prime or similar. With this setup I can focus down to about 3cm and
fill the frame with very small objects.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"nk" <nbkaplan@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:GiAbe.17633$V02.5944@fe08.lga...
>I am interested in getting a macro lens for my canon 20d, and I think the
>canon macro is a little expensive.
>
> I saw the Tamron (SP AF180MM F/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro ($700)) and Sigma
> (APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX IF HSM ($600)) but I am not sure how good these
> lenses are.
>
> Can anyone offer any feedback on the lenses?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nath Kaplan

Those 180's are going to be close to the same coverage that a 300mm
would have done on a 35m. Do you really want that? You may for some uses,
but if you don't need quite that much I would suggest something a little
shorter. The recommendation for the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro would be closer
to what I would recommend for a very nice lens, or even something around 50
mm if getting close to the subject is not going to cause problems.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"rwesurfn" <rwesurfn@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:tiKbe.1$oO1.0@okepread07...
>
> "nk" <nbkaplan@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:GiAbe.17633$V02.5944@fe08.lga...
> >I am interested in getting a macro lens for my canon 20d, and I think the
> >canon macro is a little expensive.
> >
> > I saw the Tamron (SP AF180MM F/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro ($700)) and
Sigma
> > (APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX IF HSM ($600)) but I am not sure how good
these
> > lenses are.
> >
> > Can anyone offer any feedback on the lenses?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Nath Kaplan
>
> I have the tamron 90 f/2.8 and am very pleased with it

Have you tried any extension tubes with it? Thanks.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> wrote in message
news:irNbe.7$Do2.2@fed1read06...
>
> "rwesurfn" <rwesurfn@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
> news:tiKbe.1$oO1.0@okepread07...
> >
> > "nk" <nbkaplan@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:GiAbe.17633$V02.5944@fe08.lga...
> > >I am interested in getting a macro lens for my canon 20d, and I think
the
> > >canon macro is a little expensive.
> > >
> > > I saw the Tamron (SP AF180MM F/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro ($700)) and
> Sigma
> > > (APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX IF HSM ($600)) but I am not sure how good
> these
> > > lenses are.
> > >
> > > Can anyone offer any feedback on the lenses?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Nath Kaplan
> >
> > I have the tamron 90 f/2.8 and am very pleased with it
>
> Have you tried any extension tubes with it? Thanks.
>

Can I get a good explanation of what extension tubes are, how they work, and
where they are available?
Thank You>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NJPbe.7478$dh.6553@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Conrad wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a little bit stumped about the term macro lens. I just got a Sigma
>> 70-300mm F 4-5.6 Macro Super for my Canon 350D. Directions say to set
>> on Macro and have lens at 300mm. I'm just unsure what to use this
>> setup for.
>>
>> Previously I've used a Nikon CP 950 macro at less than 1 inch from
>> subject (usually shot at a few inches away from subject). Also used a
>> Fuji S7000 with two different macro settings.
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Conrad
>> weil91@aol.com
>
> Sad to say many manufacturers have taken some liberties with the term
> macro. In the old days, and in my mind it should still be, a macro lens
> was any lens capable of focusing an image live size with out adding
> extension tubes or bellows etc. Today they play word tricks and they
> sometime build in some sort of optical trick to focus closer but in poor
> quality.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit

I just posted a couple of macro photos at www.shuttertalk.com look at the
left under "Macro tubes", these were done with a macro setup that cost me
$26, the shot of the complete dime was domne with half the tubes.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <VvSdnVCnNb8f_O3fRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
Marge <mbasher1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Steve Gavette" <sgavette@no.cox.spam.net.4me> wrote in message
>news:irNbe.7$Do2.2@fed1read06...

[ ... ]

>> Have you tried any extension tubes with it? Thanks.
>>
>
>Can I get a good explanation of what extension tubes are, how they work, and
>where they are available?

1) Some lenses focus by moving the entire less assembly to a different
distance from the film plane (sensor for digital). Others move
only some elements to change the effective focal point, but the
principle remains the same.

2) An extension tube, at its minimum, is simply a hollow tube
which mounts to the camera body as the lens does, and which then
accepts the lens on the other end -- thus moving the lens a
greater distance from the film plane. This is presumably a
distance near the end of the travel of the lens before mounting
the extension tube, so it allows focusing (using the lens'
focusing adjustment) starting near the closest focus point of
the lens alone, to a point significantly closer.

Additional extension tubes can be added to this one minimal one
to allow even closer focusing. Typically, the first additional
one is the same length as the primary one, and subsequent ones
are each double the length of the preceding one, allowing the
positioning of the lens to cover any possible within the limits
of the tubes.

Note that as you move the lens closer and closer to the subject,
and to greater and greater distances from the film plane, less
and less of the collected light will reach the film (sensor), so
you may need to correct your exposure to compensate for the
loss. (If the camera body will do stop-down metering, this may
deal with the exposure compensation problem for you.)

3) To get 1:1 coverage, you move the lens out a distance equal to
its focal length (neglecting correction factors for sensor crop
in DSLRs). At this point, The focusing adjustment is pertty
near useless, and the camera is best focused by moving either
the camera itself, or the subject.

4) The next step up in features would have coupling for the auto
diaphragm step-down lever.

5) For later cameras with autofocus, and CPUs to report and control
aperture, the extension tubes need to include contacts to
connect the lens' CPU to the camera body, though again, near 1:1
reproduction ratio, the autofocus is pretty useless, too.

As for where they are available -- good photo stores will either
stock them, or be able to special order them for you.

Or -- you could deal with one of the mail-order firms (most of
whom now have web sites).

While we're on the subject, there is also the "bellows" -- which
fits between the camera body and the lens just as the extension tubes
do. However, it will not collapse to as thin a package as the minimal
extension tube, so you will not be able to focus as far away as with
the extension tubes. (However, you will be able to focus closer than a
single set of extension tubes will allow for a given lens.)

Note that once you pass 1:1 ratio, your lens is being used
backwards from the way that it was designed for (that is the image is
larger than the object), so it is best to add a reversing ring to allow
the lens to be mounted backwards, with the lens mount facing towards the
object being photographed. (Obviously, most automatic features are
disconnected by this point, so you will be almost entirely manual.

Your camera's manual probably has a section dealing with
close-up photography, and should at least list some extension tubes and
bellows available as part of your camera's "system".

I hope that this helps,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:39:17 -0400, nk wrote:

> I am interested in getting a macro lens for my canon 20d, and I think the canon
> macro is a little expensive.
>
> I saw the Tamron (SP AF180MM F/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro ($700)) and Sigma
> (APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX IF HSM ($600)) but I am not sure how good these
> lenses are.
>
> Can anyone offer any feedback on the lenses?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nath Kaplan


I would highly recommend the new Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro lens. It is
~$520.00 through Delta International and at that price it comes with the
tripod foot, a hood and a very nice case. It also takes fantastic pictures
and focuses like a dream with both my 10D and 1D Mark II.

--
Ross

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ross Parker wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:33:10 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Having said that, for $100 I would go with the Canon lens.
>
>
> To compare the Canon 100mm to any of those macro lenses you would need to
> add the cost of the tripod ring ($150.00 at B&H).

Could be. I would hope optical quality comes first in any case.

As others have said, I believe the poster might be better off with a 90
- 100mm whether Tamron or Canon.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

dnichols@d-and-d.com (Donald Nichols) writes:

> Note that once you pass 1:1 ratio, your lens is being used
>backwards from the way that it was designed for (that is the image is
>larger than the object), so it is best to add a reversing ring to allow
>the lens to be mounted backwards, with the lens mount facing towards the
>object being photographed. (Obviously, most automatic features are
>disconnected by this point, so you will be almost entirely manual.

Another factor to consider: ordinary camera lenses are designed to give
the best correction for aberrations with subjects at or near infinity,
since that's where they're usually used. When that same lens is used
near 1:1, the lens design really is not optimum for that range.

If you were building a camera from scratch and wanted things to be about
1/8 life size, enlarger lenses would be a good choice because they are
designed for best performance there, rather than infinity.

There are true "macro" lenses that are designed to give the best images
around 1:1. These are usually symmetric designs internally. They're
usually exceptionally well corrected for colour and geometric
aberrations because people use them for demanding tasks (e.g. document
copying).

One of the advantages of using two lenses, one reversed, is that both
lenses are operating in the range they are corrected for. The "front"
lens takes a subject about one focal length away and projects an image
at infinity, while the second lens is focusing on an image at infinity.
On the other hand, you have the aberrations of two lenses, and the
internal reflections of two lenses, working against you.

Dave