Originally posted by Just1MoreDave I had the Panagor and it was awesome. I believe I sold it here for $165:
I sold it for two reasons. I found that going from 1:2 magnification to 1:1 meant a lot more work for me, and I wasn't willing to do it. And the Panagor needs three or four full turns on the focus ring to go from minimum focus distance to infinity, which takes forever. It makes it harder to use the lens for general use.
If you really want 1:1 macro and less general-purpose use, manual focus is not a problem and the Panagor works well. Because it doesn't have A contacts, flash usage is a little harder too. Flash is nice for freezing flowers on a windy day or flying bugs. You can use manual flash instead, though, and manual flash accessories are also way cheaper.
So, the Panagor is a 1:2 magnification? A few other qualities I am looking for in a macro lense is its over all use, quality, but also I am selling my 18-55mm DA 3.5-5.6 AL lense, I still have a Sigma 21-35mm 3.5-4.2 which SHOULD hold me off until I find some primes to replace the 18-55. My intended uses for a macro lense are of course, macro work, portraits, street photography (I'd like to get one
BEFORE the 4th of May as I am taking a school trip to Chicago and I do not go there often), and general purpose work. The Sigma 50mm f/2.8 is a 1:1 macro, new it runs about $369ish used about $270. Auto focus and all. I have no problem with manual focus. I actually prefer it sometimes, however, AF is useful sometimes too.
Would this be better for street photography, or would the Panagor (if it is 1:1) be more useful to me? Or, should I buy both?!