p.1 #1 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
I had 1:1 50mm f/4 Macro Takumar, sold it due to it's limitation of working distance at 1:1. It's simply impossible to shoot living insects in the field
with that working distance.
I did also have Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/3.4. Although I very much liked it's drawing style and smooth bokeh, I used to struggle with exposure compensation in different
lighting conditions; sold it for this reason. I mainly used to use this lens for outdoor portraits.
I am recently going through lot for reviews for Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro OS and Canon 180mm f/3.5 macro to decide for a telelens with 1:1 macro capability and to merge the
need of two above mentioned lenses. I feel, focal lengths of these lenses are nice for outdoor macro and portrait work.
Both lenses are highly rated and weigh similar. Canon has advantage of focal length of 180mm (more working distance for macro), whereas Sigma has of f/2.8.
Canon has also advantage of minimum aperture of f/32. But most of the Canon lens reviewers mentioned that tripod is must to get sharp result.
Did anybody have experience of both the lenses? Would these lenses be difficult to shoot handheld (I have Zeiss 100mm MP and shot good no of macro with it.
I found that it's extremely difficult to use tripod for outdoor macro in most of the situation)? How do these two lenses compare with respect to foreground and background bokeh? What about color rendering, sharpness wide open? Examples would be great.
Any other lens suggestions are also welcome.
p.1 #2 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
How often are you shooting at 1:1? Because if you're doing a lot of shots at 1:2 or lower magnifications, my personal recommendation would be the Canon 100L IS. Working distance at 1:1 is a bit short for live animals, but at 1:2 I never had any problems spooking my arthropod quarry. Stabilization is fantastic, and very useful at high magnifications (even at 2:1, if you stick 68mm of extension tubes on the back of it).
p.1 #5 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
obik wrote:
How often are you shooting at 1:1? Because if you're doing a lot of shots at 1:2 or lower magnifications, my personal recommendation would be the Canon 100L IS. Working distance at 1:1 is a bit short for live animals, but at 1:2 I never had any problems spooking my arthropod quarry. Stabilization is fantastic, and very useful at high magnifications (even at 2:1, if you stick 68mm of extension tubes on the back of it).
I want to keep option for 1:1 macro and also want to use this lens for outdoor portrait work. I already have Zeiss 100MP with 1:2 magnification. I want to go for longer focal length with 1:1 macro.
Nice gallery Dave. Is working distance enough to shoot insects with this lens? As I have ZE 100MP, I am looking for lens with focal length ~ 150 or more.
p.1 #8 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
prosep wrote:
Nice gallery Dave. Is working distance enough to shoot insects with this lens? As I have ZE 100MP, I am looking for lens with focal length ~ 150 or more.
1:1 with the Mamiya is at 1.32 feet.
1:1 with the Tamron 180mm is at 1.54 feet.
Dave
p.1 #11 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
gpop wrote:
if working distance is important, the 180L takes the 1.4x to give you a bit more. still at 1:1, I believe.
Nice to know that.
gpop wrote:
I got the non-os sigma 150/2.8 last year, great for the price. feels snappier than the 180L in use, that's not saying much, but all I can offer.
Could you please tell about the difference in flexibility of handheld shots?
gpop wrote:
I also have the 100L, but rather have the 100MP. but maybe the grass is always greener......
It is always greener!
p.1 #14 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
Some minimal focus distance info:
Sigma 150mm OS - 1:1 at 38cm
Sigma 180/3.5 - 1:1 at 46cm
Tamron 180/3.5 - 1:1 at 47cm
Canon 180/3.5 - 1:1 at 48cm
Canon FD 200/4 - 1:1 at 58cm
Zeiss ZE 100/2 +2x converter - 1:1 at 44cm
One thing to consider is the length of the lens, plus hood if used - you have to subtract these to get at the working distance. Longer focal lenses tend to be longer in dimension so the increase in working distance is less than the minimal focus distance info suggests.
I use the Canon FD macro 200/4 with a thin glassless adapter.
If you want to shoot handheld, the Sigma 150 OS seems like the best candidate.
p.1 #16 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
I Have the Tamron 180 and I feel it is a stellar lens. I use it hand-held and with a 1.4 TC at times. It also is an excellent med telephoto lens with great bokeh.
p.1 #17 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
dickb wrote:
Some minimal focus distance info:
Sigma 150mm OS - 1:1 at 38cm
Sigma 180/3.5 - 1:1 at 46cm
Tamron 180/3.5 - 1:1 at 47cm
Canon 180/3.5 - 1:1 at 48cm
Canon FD 200/4 - 1:1 at 58cm
Zeiss ZE 100/2 +2x converter - 1:1 at 44cm
One thing to consider is the length of the lens, plus hood if used - you have to subtract these to get at the working distance. Longer focal lenses tend to be longer in dimension so the increase in working distance is less than the minimal focus distance info suggests.
I use the Canon FD macro 200/4 with a thin glassless adapter.
If you want to shoot handheld, the Sigma 150 OS seems like the best candidate....Show more →
Great info in one place. Thanks, dickb.
I am also leaning towards Sigma after going through the reviews.
p.1 #18 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
dbehrens wrote:
1:1 with the Mamiya is at 1.32 feet.
1:1 with the Tamron 180mm is at 1.54 feet.
Dave
The effective FL of the new Sigi 150 OS at 1:1 is 78mm with working distance (Sigma data)
at 1.48 ft. Using thin lens principle EFL of the Mamiya would only fall to 100mm. Must say the bokeh of the Mamiya looks as nice as my CV125 macro. Different style of rendition I think, though.
Mike
p.1 #19 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
Thanks for posting that. Yes, very easy to use those terms interchangeably.
I am surprised the working distance of the Mamiya 120 isn't a touch longer than the Canon 100mm macro. I would have guessed it focuses with a straight helicoid mechanism. I know the Canon moves elements around and the FL shortens.
Oh, here is the data straight from Sigi tech support on the 150 OS macro---may have posted this earlier.
"Thank you for contacting Sigma Corporation of America.
I contacted the corporate office for the information you are requesting.
p.1 #20 · Please help me to decide 1:1 macro-telelens
jcolwell wrote:
I think there is some confusion between "working distance" and "subject to sensor" distance. Working distance is from the front of the lens to the subject, while "subject to sensor" distance is what it says.
Here's measured data for working distance as a function of magnification, for some macro and other lenses.
Good point. What I gave was a simple reading of focus distance marks that are scribed on the lens barrel.
For my Mamiya 120mm A macro 1.32 ft or 0.402m is scribed on the lens barrel. That is not the end of lens to subject distance, which is about 14.5 cm or 5 3/4 in (which your chart shows).
For my Tamron 180mm macro 1.54 ft or 0.47m is scribed on the lens barrel. That is not the end of lens to subject distance. That distance has two measurements. Without the hood its 24cm or about 9.5 in. With its hood its about 16cm or 6.3 inches - which is not too much different from the Mamiya (which is a recess lens that gives it a built-in hood). I do not use a hood when I use the 180mm shooting insects.
However, I would not like to hand-hold either (especially the 180mm) trying to shoot 1:1 macros. Although image stabilization makes a big difference on shake it does nothing on holding a steady focus distance, where a 1mm difference makes or breaks the picture!
