anyone using a sigma 70 macro?

randomlinh

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,846
2
0
linh.wordpress.com
Ideally, if you're a canon shooter, but I'll take opinions across the board. I nearly forgot about this lens, and it would definitely fill the macro void I have now, and probably be better used than an 85/1.8 I wanted to buy again.

The lack of IF and HSM aren't a big deal, my goal with this is strictly something for macro, and the lack of HSM won't be a big deal I think if I want to play w/ portraits.

Given that, any thoughts? Why not a 150 macro? It's giantic. Am I better off w/ the 105, or maybe the canon 100, or 90 (tokina or tamron, I can't remember).

Shooting mostly static items, as I just like random close ups of things. Maybe plants/flowers in nature too. Not aiming at any insect photography.
 

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
The longer the focal length of a macro lens, the longer your working distance, which is the separation between the subject and the front of the lens. This is useful because it lets more light reach the subject, and you don't have to be as close to the subject. The depth of field is shallower, though, and longer focal length lenses are bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
 

randomlinh

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,846
2
0
linh.wordpress.com
Originally posted by: soydios
The longer the focal length of a macro lens, the longer your working distance, which is the separation between the subject and the front of the lens. This is useful because it lets more light reach the subject, and you don't have to be as close to the subject. The depth of field is shallower, though, and longer focal length lenses are bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

yeah, I'm trying to figure out a balance for myself. I actually like the closer working distance, and thought about getting a ring flash, but... yeah, don't want to pay that, haha.

and andy, 20D/40D, with no anticipation of going FF until they are under a grand =) Or at least, a ~1yr old used one goes that low.