Finally getting my tax return, little more help needed on macro please?

Ok, so working distance is the true factor on macro lenses I've found out as that is how far the FRONT of the lens is from your subject.

The Sigma 150 macro has a WD of around 20cm (32cm with 1.6x crop body) for $600

The Sigma 180 macro has a WD of around 25-26cm (40CM with 1.6x crop body) for $800

These are the two lenses that I'm looking at FOR SURE!!! I know I've been bothering you all a lot about macro stuff lately, and I apologize for that. I just want to be sure about my purchase.

So I have a 1.6x crop body (Rebel XT) and am wondering if the 8cm increase in WD is worth the extra 200 bucks?

I have recently gotten the opportunity to photograph some hawks and owls (rehab animals that can't be released) for a local wildlife rehab clinic....how far back would you guess I'd have to be to get a headshot of a larger bird such as these guys with the 150 vs the 180 (Great Horned Owl, Red-Shouldered Hawk, etc.?) How about a full body shot? Is the 180mm too much WD for something like this?

Bottom line is this......I don't want to spend the extra dough if the 180mm isn't going to REALLY give me a lot more for my money. If the 150mm is going to give me more versatility with flora (ability to get more shots as I won't have to be that far away from my subject in the woods) and these birds and mean I'll have to practice slower movements and such to get good insect shots then that is fine with me.

So...if you were in my position would you spend the extra 200 on the 180mm or get the 150mm and save the extra funds for something else?

Thanks!!

Kyle,

I have the 150 and use it on my 20D and have had fantastic results. I've used it for some portrait captures with good results too. If your shooting flora macros primarily you will have enough with the 150 IMHO. Your looking at 30 mm more for $ 200 more with the 180, not worth it in my opinion. FWIW, I found my 150 on Ebay brand new for $ 100 less than what you are listing, so you might look there.

Also, if you are looking at doing more shots for the rehabbed birds, I wouldn't think that you would have to be very far away to get the head shots you are after with either of those lenses. Sharpness is there with either lens and it will have to really depend on your subject moving really. Also, if you get into shooting more birds, I'd suspect eventually you are going to look at higher magnification glass and probably a zoom so that gives you more versatility.

Kyle, at 150mm from eight feet on your 1.6 crop body, a shot of a large hawk's head/shoulders composed vertically won't quite fill the frame. Full-body shot on large hawk or GHO would put you about 10 feet back, but of course you can always just shoot the 100-400 in those situations for its flexibility, and leave the macro in the bag unless it's inside and the lighting's not good and you need the extra aperture of the macro (although the IS on the 100-400 will buy you a bit of leeway).

Eight to 10 feet away is a good distance, anyway, because the birds might get too restless if you're very close.

I am sorry that I can't compare the two for you Kyle. I have the 180 macro and I love it. My best photo purchase ever (besides getting into digital). Does the 150 have a tripod collar? I love the collar on my 180. I chose the extra reach over the half stop on the aperture. When I bought my lens the difference between the two, cost wise, was not as much as $200.

Nathan

The 150 does have a tripod collar

IMO the more reach the better, you can always (well almost always) back off, but most of the time you cant get closer, especially with insects etc.
I myself shoot the canon 180 and love it.

Wim

Don't the sites that I'd usually save all that money on NOT have the 3 year extended USA warranty??

There are many good deals out there, you just need to check the either the websites independant ratings or if buying on ebay, check the sellers reputation. I have made many successful purchases and gotten some great deals.
Joyce

Kyle, I purchased through Adorama, and they ARE a Sigma reseller, from the research that I did when I bought. I actually got a bad lens, right out of the box and Adorama was not great to work with, though not horrible. Basically I was impatient, and wanted them to ship next day and they did not. It took a couple of weeks to turn around the lens. I think the 180 macro for me was about $580 (or somewhere close to that).

I do not shoot many bugs, but I do like the reach of the 180. All my bug shots and all my flower shots come from the 180. Here is one example. This was not quite full magnification for the lens. I did not have the hood on for this one, if I rember right.

Nathan

OK.....got the 190XPROB with 322RC2 head, superclamp, and Sigma 150mm macro.

I saved about 100 bucks getting that one instead of the 180mm.

I think I made the right decision, we'll see when I start snapping photos!!

Thanks for all the input everyone, in the end I just didn't justify the extra cash for a few more inches of working distance.

Thanks!!

Kyle, good luck. Be patient with the new gear and listen to your instincts. The eye and heart of the photographer trump gear every time.

Thanks Steve!!!

I really do appreciate all the input that you and everyone else have given me on this great forum.