I'm considering the Sigma 150 macro. Or possibly the Canon 100.
I need some help understanding the advantages of a macro lens over extension tubes. I have Kenko extension tubes I could use on 135L, 85L, 90-TSE, or 70-200/4 IS. I have no other use for a 100 or 150 macro other than macro. I do know from my limited experience that I like a little reach.
With current macro lenses, you can reach 1:1 very easily. If you haven't shot at that magnification very often, it is pretty impressive and tight.
With extension tubes, you'll need a lot of extension to reach 1:1. Also, the lenses you list, while absolutely first rate, are not as optimal near their closest focussing range. They'll still be pretty sharp, but probably not as sharp as a macro lens.
I would suspect that the TSE lens might vignette with an extension tube, but I have ever tested this.
On the other hand, having the extension tubes is cheaper, lighter, and leaves more space in the camera bag.
How much macro do you think you will be doing? A combination of extension tubes and the Canon diopters will give you a lot of close focusing capability, be fairly sharp and a lot easier on the wallet.
If you do go the macro lens route, the Sigma 150 migth be a better choice, simply because of working distance from the subject, Especially with skittish subjects such as butterflies, you'll need every inch of working distance you can get. The one consideration for the 100 is where you'll be working most of the time. If you'll be using it mostly indoors, especially with one of the smaller sensors with a cropping factor, you might find the 150 is too long of a lens and you can't get back far enough. I am looking at picking up a 100 specifically for this reason.
Short answer: the macro lenses are optimized to be very, very sharp near 1:1, but can be used at any magnification. My 180 macro is also my primary landscape lens.
I use my 100 f 2.8 m,acro for flowers and bugs. However for butterflies I use extension tubes on my 100-400 so I can be further away from the subject and still have good frame filling shots.
Don: I do a lot of macro shooting and have used just about every conceivable setup. I started with simple close-up filters on a 100-300, then bought a 100 macro and thought I was in heaven until I bought a 200 macro and knew I was there. I have tubes but only use them on my 300 2.8 to get a closer minimum focusing distance. For me, tubes on a zoom lens are a monumental pain in the butt as you have to refocus every time you change the zoom setting. Tubes on your primes will work but as was said earlier it takes a lot to get to real significant magnification. If you have the cash, buy the longest macro lens you can afford. You'll be glad you did. >=))>
I don't have a ton of experience with different setups like Bill does, but I absolutely love my Sigma 180 macro. I would not trade it for anything. It is rare any more that I even take this lens off my camera body.
The 2 biggest advantages to owning a dedicated macro lens are: 1) You can focus continuously down to 1:1 image magnification without using any diopter lenses or extension tubes, and 2) dedicated macro lenses have been highly corrected for flatness of field of the projected image on film/sensor. Number 1 is the most important feature in my experience. Number 2 is most important when photographing extremely flat objects such as flat artwork, pages out of a book, etc. Rarely are there absolutely flat surfaces in nature.
This being said, I own a Sigma 150mm macro lens that I have found to be the best of the macro offerings. However, that is not to say that you cannot make very fine macro images using other good optics. If I am out shooting landscapes and I've left the 150mm Sigma at home, I will add extension tubes and, maybe, a Canon 500D diopter lens to my 70-200mm f 4L zoom to photograph macro subjects. I have made many fine macro images using this rig. Those images would be very hard to differentiate from images made with my 150mm Sigma.
Anymore, I think the choice of owning a dedicated macro lens really boils down to: Do you shoot a lot of macro? Enough to warrant a dedicated macro lens? Or is macro an occasional subject? If you answer "yes" to the first two questions then you will be best served with a dedicated macro lens. If you answer "yes" to the third question, then,save your money. For the few times you will actually be making macro images invest in extension tubes and a couple of diopter lenses and use one of your other fine lenses for macro.
I also feel compelled to add that my Kenko tubes come in handy in a number of situations when I'm shooting the Canon 100 macro. Of course, I'm almost always shooting flowers with the macro, not chary creatures, and the closer working distance doesn't seem to bother the flowers, as near as I can tell.
Steve took my words. I use both, and often together when I want closer than 1:1. The tubes are a comparatively cheap addition to a macro setup.
BTW- I use the two together so frequently that for years I have stored them on my 100mm macro lens. Convenient and better than having them rattling around in your bag. I can remove them as needed.
Nope, right handed, but I'm left-eye dominant. Sucks when trying to shoot a camera in front of an old-fashioned pedant. Not to mention shooting a bow (I can't make the sight pins line up just right). Is that close enough?
As for being red-headed, I had new copper-penny hair as a boy, but you know what they say about redheads. They don't turn gray -- they just get pink with age.
Oh, Tom. Twin sons from different mothers? Man, that sounds like an album from the 70s, and nobody wants to be THAT old.
A factoid: While there are many people that are strongly right hand dominant, lefties are never this way. Lefties are always at least a bit ambidextrous. That's good, because hospitals seldom have left handed surgical tools for residents. Yes, that lefty surgery resident is going to cut you open with right handed tools.
Anyway, why do you think sigma made both the 150 and 180? Seems too close to bother. Does either have the reputation for optical superiority?
I think Sigma built the 150mm macro to meet the demands for a longer focal length but lighter weight macro lens. The 180mm macro lenses are pretty neavy in comparison. They also made it an f 2.8 lens, instead of an f 3.5lens, for the large aperture fanatics. In my testing I've done, the 150mm Sigma macro produces the better image quality than the 180 Sigma and the 180 Canon macro lenses. I've owned all three lenses but kept the 150 Sigma macro.
Don, actually a lot of us lefties get to be at least slightly ambidextrous simply because that was the only way to get through writing and musical instruments in elementary school, especially the early 70's.
The expressions I got when I took organic chemistry and set up the labs right to left rather than the "correct" direction in the picture...
I used 25mm and 50mm tubes on a 135mm for many years, the downside is a very limited working range for focus, you end up moving the tripod all the time, now with my 200mm macro lens, I just setup and focus, much more convenient. The extra reach of the long macros is definitely worthwhile.
Discussion
17 repliesI need some help understanding the advantages of a macro lens over extension tubes. I have Kenko extension tubes I could use on 135L, 85L, 90-TSE, or 70-200/4 IS. I have no other use for a 100 or 150 macro other than macro. I do know from my limited experience that I like a little reach.
With extension tubes, you'll need a lot of extension to reach 1:1. Also, the lenses you list, while absolutely first rate, are not as optimal near their closest focussing range. They'll still be pretty sharp, but probably not as sharp as a macro lens.
I would suspect that the TSE lens might vignette with an extension tube, but I have ever tested this.
On the other hand, having the extension tubes is cheaper, lighter, and leaves more space in the camera bag.
How much macro do you think you will be doing? A combination of extension tubes and the Canon diopters will give you a lot of close focusing capability, be fairly sharp and a lot easier on the wallet.
If you do go the macro lens route, the Sigma 150 migth be a better choice, simply because of working distance from the subject, Especially with skittish subjects such as butterflies, you'll need every inch of working distance you can get. The one consideration for the 100 is where you'll be working most of the time. If you'll be using it mostly indoors, especially with one of the smaller sensors with a cropping factor, you might find the 150 is too long of a lens and you can't get back far enough. I am looking at picking up a 100 specifically for this reason.
Short answer: the macro lenses are optimized to be very, very sharp near 1:1, but can be used at any magnification. My 180 macro is also my primary landscape lens.
Nathan
This being said, I own a Sigma 150mm macro lens that I have found to be the best of the macro offerings. However, that is not to say that you cannot make very fine macro images using other good optics. If I am out shooting landscapes and I've left the 150mm Sigma at home, I will add extension tubes and, maybe, a Canon 500D diopter lens to my 70-200mm f 4L zoom to photograph macro subjects. I have made many fine macro images using this rig. Those images would be very hard to differentiate from images made with my 150mm Sigma.
Anymore, I think the choice of owning a dedicated macro lens really boils down to: Do you shoot a lot of macro? Enough to warrant a dedicated macro lens? Or is macro an occasional subject? If you answer "yes" to the first two questions then you will be best served with a dedicated macro lens. If you answer "yes" to the third question, then,save your money. For the few times you will actually be making macro images invest in extension tubes and a couple of diopter lenses and use one of your other fine lenses for macro.
BTW- I use the two together so frequently that for years I have stored them on my 100mm macro lens. Convenient and better than having them rattling around in your bag. I can remove them as needed.
Left handed?
As for being red-headed, I had new copper-penny hair as a boy, but you know what they say about redheads. They don't turn gray -- they just get pink with age.
Oh, Tom. Twin sons from different mothers? Man, that sounds like an album from the 70s, and nobody wants to be THAT old.
Anyway, why do you think sigma made both the 150 and 180? Seems too close to bother. Does either have the reputation for optical superiority?
The expressions I got when I took organic chemistry and set up the labs right to left rather than the "correct" direction in the picture...