Long Macro Lens Buying Agony

I've got the Sigma 10-20, the 43mm & 77mm Limiteds and the Tamron 18-250mm. My

pnet critics think I need a real macro (I've been faking it with the 77) and I

agree.

 

I'd pretty much decided to get the Sigma 105mm and was thinking that my next

acquisition after the macro would be something sharper and faster than the

Tamron in the 150-250mm range and, mulling this, I picked up chatter about the

Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM.

 

I understand that it's not available in K-mount yet and it's going to be way

more expensive than the 105mm but all reports are that it's a really excellent

lens. I'm thinking "If it really is a good macro and sharper than the Tamron to

200mm, maybe it makes more sense than getting a really good macro *and* a really

good long lens."

 

Any advice?

What magnification ratio is it? A true macro lens will get you 1:1, a zoom won't. It's up to

you to decide if you need it though. I'm sure the true macro will give you better image

quality too, but again, it's up to you to decide if you need it or not. What exactly will you

be photographing with it?

 

If you decide to go with a true macro lens take a good look at the Pentax 100/2.8 DFA; it's

probably the sharpest lens I've ever owned and the size and weight were big benefits to

me since it joined me on hikes many a time.

 

Alan

Dave, the Sigma has a 1:3.5 ratio, which is hardly a macro ratio, and about the same that you get with the DA 18-55mm kit lens. Like Alan said, a true macro lens achieves a 1:1 ratio, and is also optimised to be used as a macro lens, and not a multi-purpose zoom, like the 70-200mm.

 

You have to decide what's more important to you: a flexible, fast zoom; or a macro lens.

Thanks Alan. Sigma says, "maximum magnification of 1:3.5." I gather you'd say that's not real macro?

 

As far as macro uses, I'm not planning to get obsessive about flowers or bugs but I do like to get really get into natural or architectural detail at times--like this: http://www.photo.net/photo/6871299 .

 

On the telephoto side, it would be sports, wildlife and city-scapes.

 

So, in your book, I should not take the "swiss army knife" approach?

The Sigma is a macro focusing lens, but not a macro lens.

 

It merely means instead of focusing at 12feet minimum it might go to 4.5 ft.

 

But it's not a true macro lens.

 

I was assuming you were getting to the Sigma 50mm, 105mm or 150mm 1:1 macros.

 

Based on a lot of reviews, I'd lean towards the 105mm Macro (if you are intent on Sigma). It will give you a bit more working distance than a 50mm. Although the 50mm will be more compact and still produce 1:1 without any addons.

 

At the very very least look for something that achieves 1:2 ratio which is pretty useful and probably less expensive.

 

Of course you probably can still find a Tamron 90mm 1:1 or a older Vivitar 105mm for a decent price.

Reading your last post, what about the Sigma 150mm Macro 2.8 1:1 or the Sigma 180mm 3.5.

Thanks all! I'm convinced that I should get the real macro now and ride the Tamron for telephoto for the time being but I'm thinking that the Sigma may be a step up for that focal range.

 

As to macros, I'm not wedded to the Sigma 105 but, based on the discussion I'd read here and elsewhere, it just seemed the best fit (as between it, the Pentax and the Tamron 90) all things considered.

 

I had considered the longer macros but was worried that there might be special challenges doing macro work at what seems to be a somewhat extreme focal length--much greater sensitivity in terms of camera motion, for example. Are those concerns unnecessary? Would a 150mm macro be a good choice for shooting field sports like soccer and lacrosse?

I second for the Sigma 150/2.8. From what I read is one of their "cult" lenses. I wonder if you can find it in K-mount...

I'm no macro expert. I'm sure godfrey or perhaps Johan could be more helpful. But generally the advantage of longer macros is more working distance at the same magnification.

 

Longer lenses would be nice for (just and off the wall example) photographing rattle snakes or killer bees, or even frogs or other less deadly wildlife. No matter what you shoot for 1:1 ratios you will want a bomber tripod.

 

However, I'd actually think, a longer lens would be somewhat easier to use because the working distance is greater so is the DOF. I know my 1:2 sigma has a decent working distance which at times seems like a pain, and at others, (animals and such) seems like a blessing.

No, the Sigma 150 is not available in K-mount. The 180 is, but seems to be out of stock everywhere at the moment--I think I'll get on the waiting list.

If you are on a budget and looking for a beautiful, inexpensive optic, find a Tamron Adaptal 90mm f2.5 or f2.8 lens. Stunning lens, less than $150 used (often much less). Worth keeping an eye out for.

Are you sure you want that long of a macro lens? Make sure it actually fits in with your

needs instead of just ordering one and being disappointed later.

 

Of course the main advantage of a long macro lens is more working distance but if you

aren't photographing insects or things that spook it won't really matter.

 

The main disadvantage of a long macro lens is the same as it's main advantage, more

working distance. You may find that in some situations you can't get far enough away

from the subject to get the picture/framing you want.

 

That's a seriously big lens too, weighing over 2 pounds. Hand holding will be tough and a

tripod will almost be a necessity I'd think, though a good tripod is always a good

recommendation for macro work.

 

Of course if that's what you think you need then go for it. I've got to say though, and don't

take this personally, that it doesn't really sound like you know what you want/need.

Perhaps you'd be best served by buying an older, used macro lens on EBAY or something.

Something manual focus would be fine since you rarely use AF when doing macro work

anyway. The old Pentax 100/4 can be had pretty cheaply and is a fine lens, I used one

before I bought a new macro lens. It only goes to 1:2 magnification though. Plenty of

other older macro lenses are out there too.

 

That would be a good way to get your feet wet and figure out better what you want/need.

Maybe you'd get along just great with the lens and it would be all you needed. If you

decide to sell it in order to buy a new one you'll find that it probably held it's value quite

well, I actually sold mine for more then I bought it for.

 

It's really easy to get caught up in buying a new toy and I almost did it twice this week.

Both times I was going through the actual ordering process at B&H when I suddenly

realized that I didn't really have much use for what I was about to buy and that I'd regret it

after a couple months. Good thing too because it was about $1250 worth of gear.

 

Alan

Strictly my opinion. The best macro lenses for the money are the Kiron (or Vivitar Series 1, or Lester A Dine) 105mm macro, which is manual focus, or the Tamron SP 90mm macro, which is auto-focus. Both will do an outstanding job and both go 1:1. There is an older Tamron SP macro that goes 1:2 that does a nice job, as well.

Well, of course, you're right, Alan, I don't know what I want--that's why I posted. I know I want a longish (>50mm) macro and also that, sooner or later, I'd like to upgrade from the Tamron 18-250 for >100mm telephoto.

 

The question is whether I should to do this with two lenses or one. In addition to purely photographic considerations, there is the matter of cost ($800 vs $400 + $800) and the schlep factor since I'm already at the point where I have to think twice about which lenses to carry (given my life/shooting style, btw, the number of lenses is more of a concern than weight.)

 

I had figured that a tripod would be pretty much mandatory for macro work with anything longer than 50mm: I mean, if I'm going to hand-hold, there's no sense spending money on good glass.