Sigma 150mm macro

[Tannin]

Lunar, you mentioned in another thread that you have a Sigma 150mm macro. I'm selling my TS-E 24 (the mark 1) and plan to use some of that money to finance a second macro lens. I have the EF-S 60/2.8 (which I love) but I'm after something longer as well - not least because if I'm out with Belinda, she monopolises the 60, which is fair enough seeing as it was a present from her in the first place.

I've considered the Canon 100/2.8 and the Canon 180/3.5, but I'm thinking that I want something a little longer than the 100 but smaller and lighter than the Canon 180. (And possibly a lot cheaper too, though I'll probably spend the extra if I have to.) So the Sigma 150/2.8 macro sounds perfect. Pretty good price too. Are you happy with yours?

 

[udaman]

What's wrong with a TS-E 90? If you need more reach, compromise would be to use a teleconverter. TS-E 90 would be sharper than almost any macro lens as it's one of the sharpest in the Canon line, plus you get that DOF control unobtainable (at least not very high IQ, with a macro when you run into diffraction limitation) with standard lens.

I would expect an upgraded, fully independent T/S like the 17 & 24 L2,s recently announced, in the TS-E 90 sometime in the near future. Same improvements dpreview said of the new 24, should likely be expected in the 90. LOL, and you can use them on a Rebel 500D...should you want to , Nikon's PC lenses only work well on a few high-end bodies.

 

[Tea]

Well, two or three things, Uda.

1: I'd be using it on a crop body, and I find the TS-E 24 just too darn difficult to use effectively on a crop body. To really be able to see what I'm doing, I need to use the 1D III, and I don't like doing that - the Mark III lives on the 500 for bird work and I don't like not having it ready for any eventuality - you never know when something interesting will turn up unexpected. Plus it's a right pain to swap over.

Unlike the newer Canons (40D, 50D) the Mark III doesn't have user modes that let you swap instantly from one setup to another. On a 40D, for example, one click of the dial takes me from standard setup (say ISO 200, f/5.6, single shot, single shot focus, partial metering, no MLU) to landscape setup (ISO 100, f/11, single shot focus, single shot, mirror lock-up, evaluative metering, 2 second timer). A second click takes me to bird mode (ISO 500, f/4, high speed repeat, AI servo focus, no MLU, partial metering).

But the Mark III doesn't have that, just a cumbersome save-settings-to-card routine that I never use because it's too clunky. (What a difference a few months make!) So I have to re-set all that stuff every time I want to use the TS-E, and fit the tripod quick-release foot (yes, damnit, I still have two completely different tripod head QR systems - I'll swap the other one over to an Arca-Swiss the same as the big tripod one day) ... and all of that because, not having Lunar's skills, I can't get reliable results with the TS-E 24 using a crop viewfinder - I just can't see what I'm doing clearly enough. Why would a TS-E 90 be any different?

2: I prefer having auto-focus. Even though I use manual focus a lot for macro (mostly using a 40D) and get good results, I use AF for macro quite a lot too. And I certainly use AF for non-macro shots - I don' just use the 60mm for macro stuff.

3: You need close-up rings to use a TS-E 90 for macro work. Close-up rings are a pain, especially when you are swapping back and forwards between close shots and distant shots - something you do quite a lot with flora - you know, entire tree, small branch, leaves, flowers, fruit, buds, bark, tree-in-landscape: it's all part of it. So I don't want to use rings all the time.

4: I'd like something longer than the 25-105 but shorter than the 500. Yes, I have a 100-400, but I don't like the picture quality below about 200mm. It's sharp enough, but the colour and contrast is prety ordinary. At 100mm, my 24-105 kills it. So I can see some benefit in having a nice longish prime in the 130 - 180mm range. (Most people would get a 70-200, but I only shoot in this range a little bit, so I have no plans for one.)

5: I'm not sure that 90mm would be long enough. 180mm might be a bit much (not sure) but I want something quite a lot longer than the 60mm macro I have.

So I might get a TS-E 90 one day - I've seen some superb macro work done with them - but not at this stage.

 

[LunarMist]

Lunar, you mentioned in another thread that you have a Sigma 150mm macro. I'm selling my TS-E 24 (the mark 1) and plan to use some of that money to finance a second macro lens. I have the EF-S 60/2.8 (which I love) but I'm after something longer as well - not least because if I'm out with Belinda, she monopolises the 60, which is fair enough seeing as it was a present from her in the first place.

I've considered the Canon 100/2.8 and the Canon 180/3.5, but I'm thinking that I want something a little longer than the 100 but smaller and lighter than the Canon 180. (And possibly a lot cheaper too, though I'll probably spend the extra if I have to.) So the Sigma 150/2.8 macro sounds perfect. Pretty good price too. Are you happy with yours?

It's a very nice lens. IQ is as one expects from a fine macro, but not spectacular in OOF areas. AF is acceptable, but typically Sigma if that makes sense to you. I usually move the camera back and forth to focus at close distances or use a macro rail on a tripod. AF is more useful at moderate distances or on very flat subjects. The compact size and bright aperture (for a tele macro) are my justification for owning one. The tripod collar is OK, but the rough Sigma lens barrel coating makes for imprecise rotation. The MT-24EX macro light works fine with the 72mm adapter, which is not the case with some other lenses. Sigma is notorious for variable quality, so YMMV more than with most primes.