Focus and clarity issues?

[skip hansen]

I purchased a 20D a couple of months ago. Overall, I love it. I have a

Sigma 70-300 (1:4-5:6), a Sigma 28-70 (1:2-8:4), and a Canon 18-55

lens. I am not satisfied with the macro shots from the 70-300, ie,

clarity, sharpness, etc. I have taken shots in shade, in sun, studio

strobes, floral, insects, etc...all exposure levels, saturation,

highest resolution + RAW, etc, etc. I always got crisp, clear, macro

images from my Sony DSC f828. Any thoughts or commiseration? Any

suggestions for another lens option for macro work? I edit RAW with

the EOS software supplied and photoshop cs. Thanks.

[virginia_sustarsic]

canon's 100macro is fantastic, very clear. I use it more than any of my other lenses.

[bsd230]

I second that 100mm Macro 2.8 USM is an awesome lens. Razer sharp, it also makes a nice short telephoto for portraits. I have only taken a few macro shots with it but the potential is great.

[jbq]

Get a real macro lens. Canon's 50/2.5 is a good choice in your situation, and the 100/2.8 is a great lens.

[jmichaelc]

I think what is happening here is that you are use to seeing oversharpened images produced by the Sony DSC. It is an illusion that is deceiving to the eye and what most people do not take into account is the overall decrease in true quality when these little sensors produce these oversharpened images. Try shooting your images in Manual focus and see if you have the same results. I've noticed that Autofocus accuracy isn't that great while using sigma lenses on a EOS body at large aperture. I've tested this very thing with my D30, 10D, and Mark II. All are inaccurate, with all lenses (Canon 100 F2, Canon 50 1.4, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Sigma 70-200 2.8, and Sigma 15-30 3.5). Manual Focus however, gets it everytime.

[skip hansen]

I do use manual focus (for the reasons mentioned)...I even thought that my viewfinder focus (or my eyes) were the problem. I think the consensus is that I need a "real" macro lens. The other functionalities of the 70-300 work very well. Thanks to all for the suggestions.

[athinkle]

For a zoom the 70-300 Sigma is quite a good macro, but it doesn't come close to a dedicated macro lens. Don't mess around with the canon 50 2.5 macro: It only goes to .5 life size and the MF ring is a piece of junk. If you combine it with the life-size adaptor the price becomes equal to that of the 100, so why not just get the 100 to begin with? Honestly, the 100mm range macros from canon, sigma, and tamron are all pretty damn good. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, so if you can I'd try to play with each of them if you can find them. (P.S. I've owned the Canon 50, sigma 50, and sigma 105. The sigma 105 is the only one I still have and it's my workhorse lens at the moment.)

[bennyboy]

I bought an EFS 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM a couple of days ago and am blown away by the image quality. I know it's not a good long term investment buying EFS, but I bought it for now. There're a few images in my portfolio that I took today with this lens.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I am not satisfied with the macro shots from the 70-300, ie, clarity, sharpness, etc......I always got crisp, clear, macro images from my Sony DSC f828.

 

You are comparing a non-EX Sigma lens to a Zeiss lens and wonder why you don't get the same results? Hummmmm......... I'll have to think about this..........

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[skip hansen]

Well...yes, I still wonder why. A fixed Zeiss lens is going to bring better results.