[JeanChris]

hi

I'm new here, and rather new to photography as well, so please bear with me.
Every thread I read says either the Tamron, the Sigma or the Pentax are great, but the Sigma's 105mm make it a little bit more appropritate for insects.

Question 1 : all these lenses are 1:1 factor, so why the difference ? is it just because the Sigma's minimal focusing distance is a mere 2.3 cm more than the Tamron's ?

Question 2 : searching on Flickr, I find many more amazing and larger insect close-ups taken with the Sigma than with the Tamron (eg : Flickr Photo Download: P5191561 ). It almost seems as if the Sigma has higher macro ratio than the Tamron. Again is this because of the small difference in focusing distance ?

Question 3 : Later on, I might want to go beyond 1:1 ratio. Which is the better way : teleconverters or extension tubes ? if the former, are there better+cheaper options for either of the 3 lenses ?

thanks
Jean-Christophe

hi

I'm new here, and rather new to photography as well, so please bear with me.
Every thread I read says either the Tamron, the Sigma or the Pentax are great, but the Sigma's 105mm make it a little bit more appropritate for insects.

Question 1 : all these lenses are 1:1 factor, so why the difference ? is it just because the Sigma's minimal focusing distance is a mere 2.3 cm more than the Tamron's ?

Question 2 : searching on Flickr, I find many more amazing and larger insect close-ups taken with the Sigma than with the Tamron (eg : Flickr Photo Download: P5191561 ). It almost seems as if the Sigma has higher macro ratio than the Tamron. Again is this because of the small difference in focusing distance ?

Question 3 : Later on, I might want to go beyond 1:1 ratio. Which is the better way : teleconverters or extension tubes ? if the former, are there better+cheaper options for either of the 3 lenses ?

thanks
Jean-Christophe

Welcome to PF.

1) The differences between the lenses are mainly subjective, unless you are going to buy all three to decide which is best, don't worry about it. They all do the job fine.

2) It maybe just that the Sigma is more popular, what you are looking at may just be crops.

3) Extension tubes or reversing rings are the usual tools used for getting greater than 1:1 magnification. Note; If you use either of those options, you don't need to use a macro lens with them.

[res3567]

Welcome to PF.

1) The differences between the lenses are mainly subjective, unless you are going to buy all three to decide which is best, don't worry about it. They all do the job fine.

2) It maybe just that the Sigma is more popular, what you are looking at may just be crops.

3) Extension tubes or reversing rings are the usual tools used for getting greater than 1:1 magnification. Note; If you use either of those options, you don't need to use a macro lens with them.

Were can I get a reversing ring and will it work on my 50f2 and my Super Tak 55f1.8?

[Squier]

You can get reversing rings anywhere AFAIK

You only need a decent 28mm and an R/ring for good macro. Getting them sharp is another story

Check this guy Zeek that i know - he's a master at macro. These shots are with a
Sigma 28mm and reversing ring, using either a K20D or K10D

Prepare for amazement

These are with K20D....

The Digital Darkroom - Digital photography Forums

These with K10D

The Digital Darkroom - Digital photography Forums

[pacerr]

Were can I get a reversing ring and will it work on my 50f2 and my Super Tak 55f1.8?

Search "reverse ring" etc in E_bay or Google. Typical $5-8.

Your reversed 55/1.8 SuperTak is a super choice. Hold it up to your (camera) body and see for yourself.

Something from 28-55 with a second, similar lens reversed in front of it is ultra macro.

H2

Remember you have to get one that matches the filter ring on your lens.

[res3567]

Remember you have to get one that matches the filter ring on your lens.

Your take on the reversing ring working on a Pentax135 MF SMC-M f/3.5 lens.

It sho nuff don't close focus at all! Goodness!

Your take on the reversing ring working on a Pentax135 MF SMC-M f/3.5 lens.

It sho nuff don't close focus at all! Goodness!

Something like a 28mm or maybe a 50mm is usually what people use I think. I've yet to use one but some of the results I have seen have been pretty amazing.

[res3567]

Something like a 28mm or maybe a 50mm is usually what people use I think. I've yet to use one but some of the results I have seen have been pretty amazing.

Thank you Gary.

When mine arrives, I will test it on ALL of my primes and post pics for the pleasure of our posting audience.
My knowledge is you guy's knowledge as well.

[sveinmb]

#1 - 1:1 magnification is .. well 1:1. The only difference is the minimal focusing distance due to the small differences in focal length between the three. In real life you'll not notice it.

#2 - I've seen a lot of very impressive macro shots done with both the Tamron and the Pentax. There really is no noticeable difference between them in optical performance or field of view.

Regarding the image you linked to, you'll have to notice two important factors: First of all it's shot with an Olympus that has a smaller sensor that will give you a smaller crop straight out of the camera. Second it's tagged with EX-25, in other words the Olympus EX-25 macro extension ring and thereby you'll have a greater magnification than 1:1 My guess is that you're being extra "amazed" by the larger magnification of this combo.

#3 - As far as I know the three lenses (and their various versions) have no differences when it comes down to compatibility with teleconverters or extension rings. The major difference will be in the size of the filter thread. That can be something to consider of you'll want to share filters with other lenses or use a ring flash with at particular thread. That said I'm using my Tamron with a 55 to 49mm step down ring for my ring flash.

A few extra notes from me:

- macro lenses have a long focus throw. If you're going to use autofocus, a focus limiter function on the lens can be quite handy. (but autofocusing is often pretty useless at 1:1)

- on a DSLR crop usually gives better results than teleconverters

- at high magnification you'll need a flash to get enough light, even outdoors

- the Raynox DCR-250 is used by some as a cheap way (with great success) to achieve extreme macro combined with a 1:1 lens, there are lots of examples @ flickr

As mentioned I've got the Tamron SP 90, an older version (pre DI). There are a few examples from it at my flickr account if you're interested. Have a look under the "small creatures" set or the "macro" tag. I use the DS a lot for macro as it supports the oldskool TTL mode of my AF080C flash.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

If you intend to do much macro photography, you'll soon learn that to get to that 1:1 reproduction ratio, you'll lose a lot of light due to extension. This makes focusing difficult, which is already difficult to the shallow depth of field. To get acceptable DOF, you'll typically be stopping down to f/16 or f/22 indicated (which is really something like f/32 or f/45 due to the extension loss.) Electronic flash, off camera and on a butterfly bracket, is often employed by macro photographers for insects.

AF at these magnifications can be nearly unusable, and the subject magnification ratio is affected by the focusing ring, so most focusing is done by moving the whole camera/lens closer or further away. Macro focusing rails on a tripod were designed especially for this but they don't help as much for insects that fly or crawl fast.

Macro quickly becomes a specialty area with quite the learning curve. You might want to also try a set of close up focusing diopter lenses that screw into regular filter threads before jumping in with both feet.

If you can find a copy of John Shaws Closeups in Nature I highly recommend it for an intro to the principles involved. It's a little dated on equipment but still worth a read.

[WerTicus]

the tamron was 200$ cheaper for me and that sold it

its awesome too.

[JeanChris]

Thanks everyone for your insights.
Next time I ask for advice here, I'll wait a little longer and read all your answers before deciding for a lens !

sveinmb : I guess I really was "extra-amazed" by the pics i saw, so amazed in fact that I went and ordered the Sigma and now I just can't wait for it to arrive :-)

I'm sure I won't regret it, but reading the later posts, I think the Tamron might have been a wiser choice because (a) I could get it for cheaper and (b) having a smaller thread I wouldn't need such a stepdown ring to use with an old macro ringflash I got, or the 58 to 49 reverse ring adapter to go beyond 1:1
Could so much stepping-down cause vignetting ?

About the reversing rings setup, just to get it straight : Some people attach one long lens normally, and reverse another at the end of the former. Others directly attach a reversed ring to the body of the camera. How do the results differ ? Is the first setup the lesser because there is twice as much glass ?

[sveinmb]

My guess is is that a 58 to 49 step down could work just fine on the Sigma. Both the Tamron and the Sigma have quite a bit larger filter thread than the actual opening in front of the lens itself. Combined with the fact that these are fullframe lenses to be used on a crop sensor, you'll probably be able to use that flash without vignetting. Most of the time you'll probably be also be doing a bit of cropping in post as well.

Congratulations on your purchase - I'm sure you'll have a great time with your new lens!

[mwcfire]

I've read through this thread and I am confused. If I want to dabble with Macro photography too, do I buy one of the 90 or 100 or 105mm lens or is a simple Raynox DCR-250 added to one of my existing primes a good alternative? I just want something to play around with. The tubes, teleconverter, etc. only sounds confusing to me! My little point and shoot my wife has can do a decent macro. I want a DSLR macro done just as easy I guess.

I just want to play around and see the "macro" world a bit. Flowers, dead bugs, etc. There is a whole world we can't see and macro photography seems to show us.