What's new
By:
Filters
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

which entry level dslr macro lens?

Av8tor1

Av8tor1

Looking at these two sub 300$ Macro lenses

1. Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
2. Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro

Both seem to be good choices in this price range. The Canon is a little cheaper with better glass (maybe?)... but an older motor design and 1:2.
Sigma is 1:1 but maybe not as sharp and f/2.8....
Depending on which review you read, either one just bearly beats out the other...

Ive not even bought the camera yet but will soon, so just window shopping

The price limit is absolute and prefer not to buy used. Camera is likely to be an entry level Canon factory refurb XS or XSI

Feedback concerning these two lenses appreciated....
 
Based on your observations about the closeness of the reviews, and not on any particular knowledge of either model lens, I would say that you should go with whichever you can either get a better warranty on (if you plan to keep it and beat the crap out of it,) or whichever will have a higher resale price down the road (if you'll be upgrading in the foreseeable future.) I'd guess that the Canon would be the better bet, simply because of brand recognition, but I'm not by any means an expert. Still, I'm looking into getting a DSLR soon myself so I'm curious too.
~Joe
 
Sigma is prolly one of the top lens manufacturers and there stuff is pretty good...

as to the original question i seem to remember one of the entry level Canon 50mm Macros getting awesome reviews, not sure if the one you listed is it.....check reviews shouldnt be hard to find a head to head showdown somewhere comparing the two
 
How about a 50mm 1.8 with kenko extension tubes, even cheaper way to go if you're looking to do macro.
 
too many options, many of which are good LOL

I may end up with something completely different but for the time being I'm still interested in comparisons of these two lenses...
 
Last edited:
I use a sigma 105. Works well. not the best pair with the Nikon D40. Auto focus wont work but who really uses AF in macro mode....

DSC_00010001_2.jpg

DSC_00040001_2.jpg

DSC_00090001_1.jpg
 
I agree with Kula.
I got the same lens on my Eos 400d.
The only drawback is autofocus, it isn't really good :p
 
All things being equal, I would generally prefer the faster lens -- though I have been using Nikon and not Canon. Sigma lenses are not bad either but Canon has better glass . . .

Av8tor1 said:
Looking at these two sub 300$ Macro lenses

1. Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
2. Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro

Both seem to be good choices in this price range. The Canon is a little cheaper with better glass (maybe?)... but an older motor design and 1:2.
Sigma is 1:1 but maybe not as sharp and f/2.8....
Depending on which review you read, either one just bearly beats out the other...

Ive not even bought the camera yet but will soon, so just window shopping

The price limit is absolute and prefer not to buy used. Camera is likely to be an entry level Canon factory refurb XS or XSI

Feedback concerning these two lenses appreciated....
Click to expand...
 
Don't forget to figure in a decent monopod or tripod and perhaps used rails. real macro focusing comes with slight movements of the camera
 
  • #10
I i try to make rlly close macro shots, i usually move the subject :p, it's easier to move a small pot of pygmies then a camera on a big tripod.
 
  • #11
The problem with the Canon lens is that it is only 0.5x magnification. In order to get it to 1:1 you need to either buy the 1x adapter, extension tubes or close up lenses. The 1x adapter costs almost as much as the lens itself. If you use either the tubes or the adapter you will lose speed (f stops). Depending on how the lens was designed you may lose optical quality with tubes or lenses. You will also lose working distance. You may lose automation (metering, stop down etc.) with the tubes.

Working distance is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject. This is important in macro photography for nature. The more distance the less likely are you to startle living subjects. The more distance you have the more control you have over lighting. It's all about lighting photographers will tell you.
 
  • #12
Most macro shooters don't use a tripod. Tripods are too limiting especially when you're trying to get just that perfect angle for shooting plants or chasing down bugs. Learn to shoot handheld, takes a lot of practice, but you'll get it.
 
  • #13
larry said:
Most macro shooters don't use a tripod. Tripods are too limiting especially when you're trying to get just that perfect angle for shooting plants or chasing down bugs. Learn to shoot handheld, takes a lot of practice, but you'll get it.
Click to expand...

OMG I swear I get like 10...rozmazane (translates to blurry from Czech?) macro photos for every 1 good one I manage to nab. It really helps to have good bright light to get a sharp focus (that's why all my pics are ideally taken in full sun).
 
  • #14
larry said:
Most macro shooters don't use a tripod. Tripods are too limiting especially when you're trying to get just that perfect angle for shooting plants or chasing down bugs. Learn to shoot handheld, takes a lot of practice, but you'll get it.
Click to expand...


Tripods are fine when making pics of CP's
A big flash and open aperture also helps a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top