New Macro Lens for Rebel XTi

ct_vol · #1 09/06/2007, 09:39 AM

Ok, so I've finally saved up enough money for a new lens... I'm debating between the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8... Just wondering the pros and cons of each... Which you guys would purchase over the other... Or if there are any other lenses I should consider and why???

Thanks,
Randy

gregr · #2 09/06/2007, 09:52 AM

Regarding the Sigma pros and cons-- just a few things I'm noticing as I look at the specs: Sigma is cheaper

, Sigma has max aperture of f45 versus f32 on the Canon. In real life that probably won't be hugely significant though. Minimum focus distance is 12" and 6" on the Canon so you get a little more working room. However- the big plus on the Canon over most of the competition is the internal focus ability. On most macro lenses the lens barrel extends outward as you focus closer, but not so with the Canon. Unfortunately I can't tell from the specs on the Sigma if it features internal focusing

After looking around some more I'm pretty sure the Sigma does not focus internally, so that would be the main downside.

dinoman · #3 09/07/2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregr
Regarding the Sigma pros and cons-- just a few things I'm noticing as I look at the specs: Sigma is cheaper , Sigma has max aperture of f45 versus f32 on the Canon. In real life that probably won't be hugely significant though. Minimum focus distance is 12" and 6" on the Canon so you get a little more working room. However- the big plus on the Canon over most of the competition is the internal focus ability. On most macro lenses the lens barrel extends outward as you focus closer, but not so with the Canon. Unfortunately I can't tell from the specs on the Sigma if it features internal focusing After looking around some more I'm pretty sure the Sigma does not focus internally, so that would be the main downside.

You're correct, I don't believe the Sigma 105mm has internal focusing - BUT Sigma does make a macro with it, the 150mm.

Which if the OP is willing to consider it is also a very capable macro lens (I've heard both of optics being on par with that of the 100mm Canon macro, and build quality close to that of L glass).

ct_vol:

All three lenses, 100mm Canon, 105mm Sigma, and the 150mm are all very nice and capable lenses (don't forget the 60mm EF-S macro either). You probably can't go wrong with any of them, lot of what it might come down to is how much working space you need and/or which you'd rather have - a 100, 105, or 150mm prime for those times you're NOT using it as a macro lens. If you also plan to chase things like insects the more working space you can get is usually the better to keep from spooking them, just taking pictures of your tank working space isn't AS important really because isn't like your corals are going to get up and fly off

, but its nice to have room to get full 1:1 macros of those corals not close to the glass. They are all very capable of delivering great results.

thirty5 · #4 09/07/2007, 06:36 AM

I am also looking for a MACRO for the XT not the XTi. I want a good lens but the Canon Brand are just so expensive and i am not a professional photographer.

dinoman · #5 09/07/2007, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thirty5
I am also looking for a MACRO for the XT not the XTi. I want a good lens but the Canon Brand are just so expensive and i am not a professional photographer.

See my post above, XT, XTi as well as all current Canon cameras take the same EF mount (ok, the 5D and 1D series are a little different being full frame and not being able to take the EF-S lenses but won't get into that).

ct_vol · #6 09/07/2007, 06:49 AM

Well, really I'll claim ignorance as to what I want... lol To be honest, I thought that you had to get right up on the subject in order to get a good macro... Right now I use the 18-55mm lens that came with my camera for all my Macro shots... I also have a Sigma 70-300mm and in order to keep in focus, I have to stand across the room...

So you can use these lenses as non-macro lenses too??? Sorry, this is my first DSLR... I've had it almost a year now and am still trying to figure out how to use it...

Here's my butterfly with the 18-55mm... Made my wife happy... lol I know its nowhere near as good as most people on here, but I don't have PS and don't really know what I'm doing...

dinoman · #7 09/07/2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ct_vol
Well, really I'll claim ignorance as to what I want... lol To be honest, I thought that you had to get right up on the subject in order to get a good macro... Right now I use the 18-55mm lens that came with my camera for all my Macro shots... I also have a Sigma 70-300mm and in order to keep in focus, I have to stand across the room...

So you can use these lenses as non-macro lenses too??? Sorry, this is my first DSLR... I've had it almost a year now and am still trying to figure out how to use it...

Here's my butterfly with the 18-55mm... Made my wife happy... lol I know its nowhere near as good as most people on here, but I don't have PS and don't really know what I'm doing...

I think the picture is quite acceptable! I've taken FAR worse and insects can be tricky to capture because just as soon as you're close enough to get that shot *poof* they're off to the next spot. Picture obviously can be improved but that just comes with practice!

And we've all been in the point where don't know what all the switches and dials and settings do, it all just comes with time. Kinda strange to think but you DON'T need to be super close for it to be effectively a macro. Macro in fact refers to the fact that at a true macro the image is 1:1 at least, ie: 1cm of subject will occupy 1cm on your camera sensor. The distance this is achieved at can vary widely depending on your lens.

And sure enough you can use all these lenses for non-macro work! The only lens in Canon's line that is strictly a macro lens only is the MP-E 65mm (~$800) as it doesn't focus to infinity. All the others though act just like primes (primes don't change focal length, ie - can't "zoom") when not being used in macro range. There is plenty of pictures from all of them being used as excellent landscape and even portrait lenses.

thirty5 · #8 09/07/2007, 08:29 AM

I have used the kit lens also and have gotten a few good shots. But for true macro the lens is not adjustable meaning no zoom, it is a fixed focal length. I am looking at the tokina 100mm lens for my XT and then i am also looking at the Sigma 28-200 (i think) as a standard all around lens.

This is a pic with my standard kit lens.

Good Luck Shopping

ct_vol · #9 09/07/2007, 12:23 PM

I'm pretty sure I'm going with the Canon 100mm... Well, unless someone changes my mind by the time I get my Amazon giftcard...

Rosseau · #10 09/10/2007, 12:23 AM

While I talk myself into buying a real macro lens I have been using $10 extension tubes on a telephoto lens.

I have to manually focus and set my aperture however with a steady hand you can certainly get some great shots.

ct_vol · #11 09/10/2007, 02:34 PM

Not to sound like a complete dumby, but what's an extension tube, and how does it work??? lol

dinoman · #12 09/10/2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ct_vol
Not to sound like a complete dumby, but what's an extension tube, and how does it work??? lol

An extension tube is exactly as it sounds - its a tube that goes between your camera and the back of your lens. Just a hollow metal tube (at least most of them) without any optics in it. By moving your lens out farther from the camera you're able to focus the lens closer than you'd normally be able to (such as if your lens has a normal min focusing distance of 10", with tubes you could literally shorten it down to 3"). The good tubes have electrical contacts in them so everything works just the same as if the lens was connected directly to the camera.

ct_vol · #13 09/11/2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dinoman
An extension tube is exactly as it sounds - its a tube that goes between your camera and the back of your lens. Just a hollow metal tube (at least most of them) without any optics in it. By moving your lens out farther from the camera you're able to focus the lens closer than you'd normally be able to (such as if your lens has a normal min focusing distance of 10", with tubes you could literally shorten it down to 3"). The good tubes have electrical contacts in them so everything works just the same as if the lens was connected directly to the camera.

Wicked... That would save me tons of $$$... Its not like I'm a professional or anything... So where do I get one??? lol

dinoman · #14 09/11/2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ct_vol
Wicked... That would save me tons of $$$... Its not like I'm a professional or anything... So where do I get one??? lol

There are lots of places that carry them, any major camera store should have some. Kenko tubes are well regarded and are a bit cheaper than the Canon ones. A set of them will run you $170 or so. If you have a 50mm lens it can work quite nicely for a macro lens until you decide that its time to upgrade to an actual macro lens. In which case you'll already have the tubes and can then go super-macro!

Ebn · #15 09/11/2007, 11:54 AM

Between the two, the Canon is a better investment. Internal focusing, as Greg pointed out, and quicker focusing than the Sigma. Also, the colors and contrast are more along their top glass.

As for extension tubes, I took some pics of some awhile back (off the camera).

On the camera (w/a teleconverter on the lens as well)

Here's an old shot taken w/the 50mm f/1.4D with some Kenko tubes (just the two smaller ones IIRC) right off the sensor w/out any cropping ; missed the focus, but you can see how close it can get.

scbauer · #16 09/11/2007, 11:59 AM

Hey thirty5, like the picture... Here is my version taken in Europe with my Point-n-Shoot Sony. I've actually been happy with the "Macro Mode" on the camera (DSC-T1).

-Scott

Shoreliner11 · #17 09/11/2007, 07:59 PM

Most people don't think about the EFS 60mm f2.8 macro as an option. For me I wanted the closest focusing distance possible for underwater macro shots later on when I can afford the housing. The lens is tack sharp and a great walk around lens as well. For my purposes the 60mm works great, though I know some want the length of the 100mm. Good luck
Aaron

ct_vol · #18 09/11/2007, 08:17 PM

Thanks for the pics of the extension tubes Ebn!!!

You guys have been very helpfull... Though it looks like now I'll be buying a macro lens and some extension tubes!!!

Shoreliner~ Do you have some pics using the 60mm f2.8??? I looked at that one since its cheaper, but haven't seen near as many people using it as the 100mm... What do you mean by liking the length of the 100mm over the 60mm???

RRodrigues · #19 09/12/2007, 02:57 AM

Recently I also bought a macro lens for my XT: Tamron SP 90mm f/2,8 Macro DI. Some experts say it is a better macro lens (more sharp) than the Canon 100mm macro.

The Canon Ef-S 60mm macro is not good if you someday got a new full frame camera.

Rosseau · #20 09/13/2007, 08:05 PM

Yes I think it was already said, but the problem with the non-electrical tubes is that you have to focus manually and set the aperture manually - this can be tricky on some AF lenses, yet is usually possible.

I haven't spent too much time with it yet have had some great results considering that this is what I paid for it....

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Macro-Extension-T...QQcmdZViewItem

Well, here is my wasp shot to add to the thread...

Full resolution.

Each of these images were taken HANDHELD with no AF. I have a huge working distance aswell with a 300mm lens.

Flower shots are compressed from 10.2 MP to 800x600 px.

This shot is to show that though my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is not an "L" lens it can hold it's own. Handheld at 300mm (no macro tubes).

ct_vol · #21 10/07/2007, 09:48 PM

Ok, finally got the Canon 100mm... Here are a couple of pics I took... I still plan to get the extension tubes, but haven't yet... Its a lot different shooting with this lens, but I figure once I get used to it, my pics will turn out better... I'm very pleased with the sharpness and clarity I get with this lens...

bureau13 · #22 10/09/2007, 09:14 AM

IMO you made the right choice. I actually have the 60mm EF-S lens, and while I think its an excellent quality lens, I can't get close enough to get true macro shots of any corals that aren't very close to the glass. With the 100mm you won't have that problem.

If I get an extension tube to use with the 60mm will that help that problem? I've never used the tubes.

jds

jeffbrig · #23 10/11/2007, 07:47 AM

The tubes will only allow you to get closer to the subject (increasing magnfication). They won't enlarge something that's further away.

ct_vol · #24 10/11/2007, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jeffbrig
The tubes will only allow you to get closer to the subject (increasing magnfication). They won't enlarge something that's further away.

I'm just looking to increase my options a bit... My coffee table is right next to one of my tanks, and the wife doesn't like me rearranging furniture to take pics... lol

So with the limited amount of working room, I think the extension tubes will be some help...