I have been planing to add a good 50mm lens to my kit and I was going to get a canon 50mm f1.4 since I am after something with a little more guts than the f1.8 version and do not need to go as far as f1.2 for normal use (and cannot just justify the price of that lens either!)
However I recently saw some macro work done with the canon EFS 60mm macro lens and it got me thinking that a 50mm lens with macro would be a better bet for me since I do like macro work and a shorter focal length - whilst have a much smaller working distance (under half that of my sigma 150mm macro) it does allow for **smaller apertures and greater depths of field with less light loss/greater depths of field with a given aperture when compared to a longer focal length lens**
However as the 50mm is also for general use I was wondering how the sigma stands up when used for non-macro work. I have read that in macro it performs very well, though less talk about its use as a normal 50mm - does it retain quality over longer ranges, is its af fast/accurate (I know without the limiter being used a macro can hunt if it gets into its macro zone).
Further would I be better off with the canon 50mm and extension tubes for macro work?
edit - I currently shoot with a canon 400D - crop sensor - and whilst I am not opposed to EFS lenses I am aiming to take my lenses with me to the fullframe world in time - so prefer to avoid the EFS 60mm macro.
the fact that canon don't order their macro lenses on their site in focal length order -- so I took a quick look and totally missed that this lens existed
Its aperture is slightly wider than the sigma and the pricing on both is very similar - so if any have any thoughts on which of the two is the stronger I would also be interested to hear - thanks!
Well, the Sigma goes to 1:1 without any attachments or extension tubes, for one. It's also shown to be slightly sharper, and is noticeably sharper at f/8 and f/11, where a lot of macro shooting is done. It also has superior build quality. I'd take the Sigma 50 macro over the Canon 50 macro every time.
I've tried both and found the Sigma to be a better (sharper, better color/contrast, flatter field of focus) lens for macro. It does 1:1 macro very well.
If 1:2 macro is OK with you then spend $100 on a Zuiko 50/3.5 macro.
Edited by pdmphoto on Aug 17, 2008 at 01:38 PM GMT
Just started searching and found the same being spoken of - and for a macro lens I really do prefer to have 1:1 so I think that knocks the canon 50mm out -- still interested though in how a 50mm f1.4 works for 1:1 macro with the needed additions of course
If you want a flat field of focus and sharp corners, you need a true macro.
overrerad wrote:
you two are quicker than google
Just started searching and found the same being spoken of - and for a macro lens I really do prefer to have 1:1 so I think that knocks the canon 50mm out -- still interested though in how a 50mm f1.4 works for 1:1 macro with the needed additions of course
Edited by pdmphoto on Aug 17, 2008 at 01:37 PM GMT
The Sigma's a nice lens (and the hood is 72mm threaded so you can use 72mm filters with the hood on or 55mm with the hood off). Build quality is poor for an EX lens, but good for the price. Handling is so-so, it really could use an upgrade to HSM but that would drive it out of its bargain price point.
Optically, It's very good for the cost. Sharp with decent contrast. It's no 150 HSM, but it is very serviceable and dirt cheap. Probably the best bang/buck in macros available new.
Definitely a better choice than the Canon (no expensive widget required for 1:1, equally dirt cheap).
I'm fond of mine, even if it is likely my least favourite lens in my normal carry kit.
Thanks for the replies all -- at the moment I think I am warming more to the sigma 50mm macro - I have been told that f1.4 50mm lenses are not best suited to closeup work where as f1.8 varients are more so - and with only a small difference in max aperture I am not that worried.
True the sigma is cheap - HSM would be great, but so long as its got a manual mode for macro work and its af is not too bad for normal use (if a bit noisy) then that is fine as well I think
Been looking at more reviews and thoughts and starting to wonder if the sigma 70mm macro might not be a better option. It seems to have a general quality edge on the 50mm and its still a shorter focal length (half that of my 150mm macro) and yet I wonder if I am shooting myself in the foot - being on crop sensor and all.
The 70 mm macro is an excellent lens as well---more expensive, but if you're not bargain-basement hunting you'd probably prefer the 70 mm. Still very sharp, but with better bokeh.
You don't mention what other lenses you have, so it's hard to say which FL. If this is to me a general purpose lens on a 1.6X sensor, I'd say stick with the 50mm, and pick a macro that also has nice bokeh.
You don't mention budget, but the new Zeiss ZF 50/2 makro is insanely good. (you'd need an adapter like the Kaidan, and it's MF only, of course) It's only 1:2, though, so that might not work for you. I am going to try mine with Kenko tubes, but the tubes haven't arrived yet so no idea how that will work.
Anyway, buy a lens you won't want to sell later. That's my philosophy.
Ahh sorry - its mentioned in my profil, but I forgot to mention it in my thread - I currently have a sigma 150mm macro lens and a 70-200mm f2.8 IS (I also plan to use some extention tubes with this lens as well in order to take advantage of its fast AF for dragons and butterflies, but it is a heavy lens!)
As for the budget I am free of that - in a sort of way - since I am still at the deciding stage, so its just a case of saving up - I don't mind waiting longer for glass that won't be leaving me
Ideally 1:1 macro without conversion is what I am after - hence the sigma line - although I was unsure if a sigma 50mm macro was better than a faster normal 50mm with tubes, the general view is that a proper macro is more important if the lens will be used for macro work much of the time.
