Hello. Please excuse my ignorance but I was wondering about Macro Lenses. I like close-up photography and was wondering ...would a Macro lens make that much of a difference in close-up photography as opposed to my 17-80m kit zoom lens? Does the focal length of a Macro lens make a difference in how close up you can focus/magnify? I have heard a 100mm Macro lens is a good choice because it is more versatile than say a 50mm. You can use it for portraits, landscapes and Macros, and I've heard a Macro should be a sharper lens. I see Minolta has a 100mm Macro but it is over 500 bucks..It is a D series lens so it designed for use w/my cam.(url below) Other than it being a 100mm Macro it doesn't seem to use any special glass or anything extravegant. I have heard of this brand called Sigma. Perhaps they would have a better deal? I've noticed quite a few people here use Sigma lenses. I wonder what features to look for in a Macro lens. Thanks-Jeff http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/cam/cam_product_pages/Macro_Lenses?mDetail=Features

Jeff

macro lense makes all the difference...l use canon macro lens l glass.. the f stop is f2:8 usm.... its the quality of the glass as well and magification, plus the way the lights transfered through the optic... you need the width of 100mm.....basically for macro you need the best quality optic as its unforgiving.. dont understand $ in exchange rate aainst the pound but it roughly 399.99(Pounds)... but if need a second choice due to budget.. then yeah sigma...

with the canon..you get min focusing distance 0.31m/1.0ft
Max. magnification and field of view 1x appro
24x36mm/0.9x1.4.in

any way that what l use..if that helps.. rarely l do..

Nikki:)

Message edited on: 01/09/2006 00:37

Ahhh. TY nikki. That Minota lens is also f2.8. and .35m minimum focus whatever that means. How close I can get to the subject? It doesn't say much about the quality of glass but for that price I would think it is probably good quality. I appreciate the information. :-)

with 35mm.. about 0.31m/1.0ft....( just a tad under at 35mm) l dont know much about minolta digital well in honesty nothing... but used all minolta lens and camera in the days of film.. but l know sigma is a good second best.. l use a sigma 18mm-200mm ((not macro)).. and it brillaint..!!!

A dedicated macro lens will make all the difference if you are doing true macro, as opposed to close up, with macro you are picking out a detail in a subject and throwing the rest out of focus. Close up for me is generally a close up a larger segment of a subject or a whole subject, with the exception of a very small subject say a bee/butterfly where true macro could be used. A macro lens will allow you 1:1 life-size magnification or greater this means that the lens can produce an actual size image on the film/sensor, superior optical quality because it is a prime lens (fixed focal length) and a shallower depth of field because it can focus closer to the subject than a standard lens. 1:1 isnt available through the focusing range and is only possible at the shortest focusing distance Some 50mm macro lenses only allow 2:1 (half life-size) although I think the link you provided states 1:1 for the 50mm The 100mm macro on a cropped digital body will allow you to be further away from the subject to get the same result as with full frame, this can be useful if you dont want to disturb the subject (say an insect) you can also get a shallower DOF than the 50mm at each aperture because of its longer focal length. 10mm macro is excellent for portraits but is dose need a fair bit of space to use it. Sorry no knowledge if Minolta have always used Canon cameras and lenses, I have used the Sigma 105mm macro not quite as good as the canon IMO but still am excellent lens, $500 seems to be about right for a 100mm macro. IMO macro capable zoom lenses fall sort of a true macro lens for macro but usually quite acceptable for close up. For success with true macro consider the following: Using a tripod, because any movement can affect the point of focus as the DOF can be VERY shallow. Manually focusing, because auto focus may not be accurate enough to obtain the focus in the exact part of the frame that you want. Also macro lenses tend to hunt in auto focus mode (go back and forth through the focal range looking for something to lock on to) this is a characteristic of macro lenses, some are better than others at locking focus. I (where possible) use a tripod, set focus and move the tripod back and forth to get the focus and composition I want. Simon

I have a Sigma 50mm macro f2.8 and find the lens to perform very, very well. With the 35mm equivalent of 75mm on my cam, it still gives me plenty of working room and close but not quite a 1:1. This lens does a fine job of protraiture, also but for that I generally use a longer lens. One thing to be careful of is precise focusing..I generally do manual focus but the auto with the Sigma works well. Manual lets me pick a very distinct part of the little image. Also, I made the mistake of getting "too close" at first, closer than the lens would focus properly. Some prefer an 100mm lens but I have not used one and cannot comment one way or the other. I use a tripod when possible but that is always possible when chasing bugs! : ) Best of success with whatever lens you get.

HI All I have the Sigma 70-200mm Macro and the 70-300mm (rechipped) you can usually pick them up quite cheap on ebay, and I have heard good reports about TAMRON as well for the Canons (EF/EF-S fittings) I use these lenses regularly and I find the optics great pin sharp and wonderful....but as with anything the quality is not upto Canon standards, and you seem to lose quite a lot of light, although that could just be my eyesight. (IF YOU CHECK MY GALLERIES MOST OF THE PICS HAVE BEEN TAKEN WITH BOTH SIGMA'S). But still acceptable and worth working with them although you do have to put some more effort into to what you want to achieve. They dont focus too great on Auto, but on Manual they are spot on, but heres the but, as with any macro lens 1) dont get too close to the subject 2) remember to compensate for light 3) Use a tripod 4) USe a remote switch 5) Watch for DEPTH OF FIELD 6) Invest in a Macro Ring Flash (if you can) 7) Get a light meter 8) Experiment - Play and get to know your equipment. Just go out and have fun, theres lots to do.

Thanks Simon Tom and John. I appreciate your taking the time to explain all that stuff. :-)

coolj001, Most of the macro shots I take are off hand, camera in hand and no tripod. Try to use a tripod with a flitting dragonfly and the task beomes quite difficult. For this reason, I restate what john said about "light". The biggest problem I have run into is getting enough light, but then, most of my shots are during late afternoon when light is waning. The lens is f/2.8 and still light can be a problem. Moving subjects need both speed of shutter and enough aperture to get the shot. The Sigma 50mm I use does quite well overall and autofocus works fine when a bit back from the subject. Closer..you better go manual since dop is limited and you might want a focused head allowing the body to be less sharp. I try to plan how I will hold the camera before the shot, since this is sometimes awkard. If the critter likes to land on one place, I will wath it flit away and then plan the shot and get ready for the next time. This gives me time to set the exposure in most cases. Then again..the critter may not come back at all! Like john said, experiment! There is no teacher like our own mistakes. What you think is a perfect shot is often a disappointment in dof and lighthing. Take lots of shots, lots of shots. Try some still life shots and get a feel for the depth of field...a very critical part of macro photography. I set up a row of toothpicks, going away from me, a row about 6 inches long. You take a few shots with focus on one or the other, with different aperture settings. This is a very simple way to quickly learn how critical dof is in macro shooting. Best wishes! Tom.

The lens cap is a decent example of depth of field. At this focus, the image ratio is about 1:4 or so...guessing. See how quickly the focus drops off at f/2.8!

The second image is the bottom of a finger needing lotion. This is a 1:1 shot, filling the frame. Focus for 1:1 with the Sigma 50mm macro is measured in "very close", like an 1 1/2 inches. I would generally get back a bit. Focus is manual and my eyes are not great on that, not knowing which part of the trifocal glasses I am looking through! Yikes!

Anyway, 1:1 is mighty close. I don't know how often you would really need to be that close in macro or find it practical.. The Sigma is a middle line lens, far better than some and not as costly as a Nikkor macro and others. This lens is not internal focus(you pay for that) and a tube extends from the front for focus. On the tube are marked image size ratios, from 1:1 to on up.

These two quickies might give you more to go on. Tom. These images are stright from camera, cropped slightly and very softly sharpened. Other postwork has not been done.

Message edited on: 01/09/2006 19:37

Thanks Tom for that info. and for the examples. That finger is a nice example of how close you can focus. I see what you mean about the precision focus factor. I hope to get a Macro lens one of these days. If so I should learn well since I am good at making mistakes. :-)

While we are one this topic. My autofocus cam has a macro focusing function of 50mm up is that any good? standard? or not acceptable. Lieca lens...

The finger shot was taken with a 50mm lens, for example. I have taken many more macros with my other camera, a little and old Minolta and many are quite pleasing to me..generally using manual focus, however. PeeWee, try a few of still objects and see what is good and what is not...best way to tell. TomDart.

HI V 50mm should be ok, depends what you are doing with it really. LOL ;-)

Yeah. Sounds cool. I agree...I think lol

If you find the Minolta 100mm and the Sigma 105mm too pricey, the Tamron 90mm has a reputation as being good value for money (and also f 2.8