hello there...

i'm looking for a macro lens for my camera.....
I've heard you can get cheap sigma lenses which will fit on the 300d...

but i'm not really sure what i'm looking for. Will any lens fit my camera? or will i have to buy special canon digital lenses?

it would be helpful if anyone has some actual names of specific products that i could look up!

:)

cheers

ummmm also if you could tell me what "aspherical" means that would also be helpful...

thanks

http://www.collegecameras.co.uk/Products.asp?ProductID=106

theres one that caught my eye (particularly the price label ;) )

It's called a 'Sigma 28-135mm f3.8-5.6 Aspherical IF Macro'

does that sound good?

What are you looking to shoot whit the macro lens.

Dedicated macro lenses are way better than zoom lenses with Macro capability.

Aspherical means that it has special lens elements that prevent distorsion. These are good.

No you don't need a dedicated digital lens.

Sigam, Tamron and Tokina all make lenses with a canon mount. Be carefull to get one that has the Canon mount and not a Nikon or Pentax.

I'll post more later

ah alright, cheers - thats cleared a lot of stuff up for me.

yeh i saw some of those lenses that are both zoom and macro....
i dont really need the zoom though so thats not a problem, ill just get a macro lens.

ummm not really sure what i'll be taking photos of really. Ive always liked really close up macro photography - thought i might give it a go.
i just want a nice 'all round' macro lens really.

There are several dedicated Macro lenses available and several different categories.

Canon, Sigma and Tamron all make several similar models though the quality varies. Usually you get what you pay for.

Canon has a 50mm, 100mm and 180mm macros and a special 65mm super macro.

Sigma has a 50mm 90-100, and 180 I think

Tamron has a 90-100 and 180

Canon has the best quality followed by Tamron then Sigma in my opinion.

Sigma has a problem with quality control more than the other two companies so you may get a good lens or a bad one. Tamron is of similar quality but don't seem to have the same issues (at least to the same extent). Canon has the best but you really pay for it.


The focal length of the lens you choose will depend on what you want to shoot. A 180mm will allow you to be further away from your subject but cost the most. A 50mm has to be the closest tho the subject but generally cost the least.

All these Macro lenses can be used as normal lenses of that focal length, so a 180mm on a rebel will give you a short telephoto lens as well as a Macro.
The only lens that doesn't do this is Canons 65mm macro that gives you up to 5X life size (where all the other lenses give you 1X). This lens allows you to zoom in to spider eyes and scratches on pennies.

Magnification: Most true macro lenses are 1X or one times life size. What this means is that if you were shooting 35mm film you could measure the subject on the negative and it would measure the same in real life. With digital photography this doesn't really work as there is no negative and the sensors are different sizes.
Of the lenses mentioned the only one that doesn't do life size is the Canon 50mm which does 1/2 life size or life size with an optional adapter.

You can read reviews at place like fredmiranda.com to help you decide which one is best for you.

I have the 100mm Canon macro and like it quite a bit. I also use Kenko extension tubes with it to allow me to get 1.5 times life size. The tubes fit between any lens and camera to give it macro capability. The amount of macro you get depends on the focal length of the lens attached. The the extension tube length equals the length of the lens then it will give you life size capability. The Kenko tubes come in sets of thee with a total length of about 60mm.

You will probably also need a good solid tripod.

With the 100mm macro I have a distance of about 6 inches to my subject which allows me to get good shots from a decent distance. A 180mm would allow you to be about 1 ft away I think but would require a higher shutter speed to keep the image steady.

:)

ahhhh overload of information!!!

well theres some useful advice in there, thanks!

I'll probably get the cheapo sigma lens cos im not intending to use it that much at all - is it really bad quality? or will it be fine for me?

I have a good tripod..... and i dont intend to take pictures of bugs or anything moving really, so i think it should all be quite straightforward!

anyway, thanks for the help... (your wealth of knowledge astounds me!!!)

cheers

It's not that Sigma is Bad it's that one lens is ok and the next one is bad.

I have one of Sigma's lenses and it's pretty good.
Go to Fred Miranda's (http://www.fredmiranda.com) site to read review on the lens you are interested in.

is this any good......?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7516711508&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
:dub:

Good as in image quality = no

Good as in I can only afford this = yes, I guess

Anything less than several hundred pounds probably isn't going to give you good pictures.

right, thanks. :rolleyes:

im no professional. surely these lenses are good for something otherwise they wouldn't make them!?

you know what they say.... a bad craftsman always blames his tools.... :cheeky:

you know what they say.... a bad craftsman always blames his tools.... :cheeky:

for sure. But a good craftsman always has good tools, and loads of them. :)

surely these lenses are good for something otherwise they wouldn't make them!?

You would think that wouldn't you.

I bought a Tamron 70-300 LD because it was relatively cheap (Approx $200 US) and it performed like a cheap lens. There was lots of purple fringing and chromatic abberation to the point some images were not usable. You had to be aware of the limitations of the lens and work around them. When you did you were able to get some good average quality images out of it.

You will find lots of "no-name" brands that will produce even worse quality.

I'm also thinking of buying a new lens for my 300D, saw this new one from Canon, kinda what I want, can't find the price for it though, but I bet it costs quite a bit :/ -> http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=11156

I checked Vistek.ca where I get my stuff and it is $569cnd or probably around $450-475 US. I don't know if that is a lot to you or not, the 100mm macro I have is almost double that.

Have you checked the Sigma and Tamron dedicated macro lenses, some of them have good reviews.

Remember the longer the lens the greater the distance to subject. I would guess with the 60mm you would have to be 3.5-5 inches from the subject to get maximum magnification, the 100mm gives you approx 7 inches and a 180mm allows about a foot or so.

I should also mention extension tubes make for a cheap macro lens. If your mm's of extension equal the length of your lens then you will get life size (1:1) images. If it exceeds it then you will get larger than life size. You can also use them in conjunction with macro lenses for more magnification.

You can get a set of 3 kenko tubes for canon cameras (they make them for Nikon and Pentax as well) for about $125 US and they will give you about 65mm of extension with all three attached. Don't buy the canon tubes as you will get one 25mm for the same price.

ah, no that's ok for a lens, but what'd you suggest then for a lens if you wanted a good macro lens to take pics of lets say, eyes, tounges, insects etc and it'll give you a good quality too!

I'd like to take some closeups of animals, and such and want them to turn out great, real sharp and close (example, dogs & cats)

thanks fc, you're a god ;)

I guess we should talk about if you are actually looking for a Macro lens first as a macro lens is basically life size (or larger in some cases). So when the lens is set for maximum magnification (the closest it will focus) your subject will measure the same size as it is on a 35mm piece of film.

If you take a look at the bee pictures I took in the photography thread titled honey maker you will see example of life size or greater. The ones in the other bee thread are smaller than life size probably about 1/2 to 1/4 (the bees were quite small about 1/2 inch long). I used my 100mm macro lens for these with extension tubes attached.

For eyes, and parts of faces you probably don't need a macro, a good lens that will close focus will do the trick.

For dogs and cats you probably want more of a long lens like a 100mm to 200mm. This way you can isolate them from surroundings (especially if your inside) and not be in their face. Domestic animals will tend to investigate what you are doing (walking towards you) if you are close to them.

If you're inside you will want a fast lens (f2.8-F3.5), if you use a flash for animals you will usually get a red (or other coloured) eye.

Now if you want to take really close up pictures of say insects then a longer macro is better especially if they are biting or stinging ones.

If you want a lens to do all of these then a 90mm,100mm or 180mm Macro would be the best bet. I would go with the 180mm if I had the choice. It is also the most expensive though. A 180mm will allow you not to be right in the persons face to get eye shots and will allow more light in because you're not blocking it with your body or lens. For animals (cats, dogs) a 180mm will allow you to take head shots from about 8ft or so I would guess, allowing more candid shots. For macros you will be able to get life size shots from about 12 inches or so away which is quite far. The disadvantage or the 180mm is you need a faster shutter speed to keep the images sharp vs the 90mm or 100mm macros (if you are shooting moving things though you may already be using fast enough speeds, or you can use a tripod).

A note should be made too that Macro lenses are usually slower to auto focus as they have such a wide focal range, from about 6 inches to infinity where a normal 100mm lens may only focus from 4ft to infinity. This can make animal shots tricky.
For macros I usually set my magnification/focus then move the camera so the subject is in focus.
Good lenses will have a focus limiter switch that tells the camera to only focus on subjects beyond a certain point allowing faster focusing when using the lens more like a regular 100mm or 180mm lens.

:)

ahh, thanks a lot. Yeah the 180mm macro sounds great, had a look at some sample images, would be perfect for me, need to find some stores close here with the 100mm or 180mm lens.

the bee shots you took where great, kinda what I also want. Got more shots like those you've taken with your 100mm?

thanks a bunch :)

hey freakyclean do you have any info on the sigma 100mm macro?

How does it compare to the canon?

cheers

(and those bee pics are great by the way!! :grin2: )