I'm considering turning my hand at macro work. It was an aspect of my work years ago which fell by the wayside.
Where I used bellows previously, I have been considering the Sigma 180 macro. Of course since I mentioned to some of my friends it was under consideration, everybody has a different opinion on which route to take. Filters, bellows, tubes. While not seeing macro as a principal aspect of my work, I don't want to hamstring myself by not investing in versatile equipment.
Before laying the money for the Sigma perhaps members that are experienced in macro might offer a bit of guidance in the route to go.
Posted by Mark Kraus on April 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM
I have used the Sigma 180 for several years now and it is one super lens. I bought it when I was shooting film w/nikon f100 and now a D200 great for film or digital. A very sharp lens.
Mark
Posted by Nathan Buck on April 25, 2009 at 2:12 AM
I was not really a macro shooter before I bought the Sigma 180 macro. I have absolutely loved it. I love the collar. The focusing barrel is large and easy to use. The lens is bright. It is very sharp. I could not be happier. I do not have experience with any other macro lenses - other than a Nikkor 55mm micro. I can't believe how much better I like it than the Nikkor - the working distance makes a huge difference.
I did try extension tubes on a zoom lens, but I did not like them - but honestly did not give them time to work for me.
I love it - buying the Sigma 180 macro made me a macro and flora shooter. If you look at my images in the flora gallery, all of them were made with the 180 macro. My wife likes the lens because it keeps me around the yard shooting!
Nathan
Posted by Colin Smale on April 25, 2009 at 3:24 AM
In truth macro is achievable using a variety of gizmos, extension rings (or tubes) bellows, close up lenses (don't buy cheap ones) stacked lenses and Macro lenses, they all work. I have used everything but a macro lens for the last 30+ years. Tubes attached to a 50mm standard lens produce very good quality images which I have sold many times but they are a bit of a clat to mess about with it's true. A couple of weeks ago I finally bought my first macro lens, the Nikon 105mm. The Sigma 180mm would have been my first choice but it is so over priced in the UK. When I discovered I could attach my 1.4 TC to the 105mm it seemed like a good compromise.
So, go with the 180 Sigma but there are those other options that still produce the goods.
Colin's "compromise" isn't necessarily second-best. The Sigma 180 is a great lens--gives you great smooth backgrounds, comfortable working distance--but it is heavy. I chose the Tamron 90 macro over the Nikkor 105 VR because the Nikkor is seriously heavier and the VR is reputed not to work so well close to 1:1. Optically, the Tamron is as good. With Raynox (coated, multi-element) diopters, I can get closer than 1:1, I am continually surprised at how the image quality has not been affected for the worse, and I can hand-hold it comfortably (i.e., carry it around for hours). I think the only real consideration re the Sigma 180 is whether or not you want all your macro work to be tripod work; optically, it's a superb lens.
Don't forget the Tamron 180. It has superb reviews ahead of all the others!!
Dedicated macro lenses are an easier way to go if you can afford it.
Posted by John Farmer on April 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM
I've been using the Sigma 180 for about 6 years (I also have the Pentax 50). The Sigma is a superb lens, but heavy as noted, and not for hand-holding under any circumstances. If you want your macro work to be from a tripod, then I can recommend the Sigma.
Posted by Bill Stice on April 25, 2009 at 10:04 PM
David, as others have said there are a variety of ways to take closeups and macro shots. I've tried just about every macro lens Nikon has ever made and currently use a 60 and a 200. The 180 will certainly give you maximum versatility and the greatest working distance for a macro. The advantage of a true macro lens like the 180 is that you have unlimited reproduction ratios up to 1:1 without any additional accessories. I will say that I also use a 300 F4 telephoto lens with extension tubes because it gives me even more working distance for insects, poisonous snakes and such. In addition if I want to go larger than life size I will use a bellows and a fairly short lens such as a 50 or a 105. They all are useful and each has its strong points. I don't think you will be disappointed with the 180. Hope this helps.
Posted by Alex Lofquist on April 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM
If versatility is of prime importance in your macros, perhaps you should consider a tilt/shift lens. I find that I use my Micro Nikkor 85mm T/S more than any of my other macro lenses when I have difficult subjects. The downside is that the lens is very expensive.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 27, 2009 at 12:08 AM
A large part of the right answer for you is how much macro work will you be doing? Only you can really answer that question.
Here are some of my thoughts, partly geared towards a larger audience:
First, from any major manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony/Minolta, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron), there is no such thing as a bad macro lens. Everything out there new is great and you are just choosing your level of great.
If you will be doing a lot of macro work, I'd probably favor a true macro lens of the 90-105 or 150-180-200 variety. These lenses will get you to 1:1 without additional accessories. It is probably the cheapest and easiest dedicated way of getting to 1:1.
In this category, I'd probably favor the 150-180-200 lenses for the working distance which they provide. This does make a big difference when working with skittish subjects such as dragonflies and frogs. The downside is weight (at 1;1, they get pretty heavy to keep steady), extension tubes have less of an effect, and attaching a tube or two, plus a convertor and you have a pretty unwieldy monstrousity to handle. Relatively speaking, it is probably the most expensive option. Recommendation here: The Canon 180, Nikon 200 or Sigma 150.
The 90-105 lenses are a a good second choice. You do get some working distance, extension tubes have a more pronounced effect but greatly cut working distance, they are lighter and cheaper. I've also found that the 180, especially with a cropped sensor, is really tight indoors. I've done a lot of butterfly headshots with the 180 and cropped sensor, while with a 90-105, I could probably get the entire butterfly in. Recommendation: anyone, but Canon makes you buy the tripod collar separately.
The downside of buying a true macro is the cost. On the other hand, my 180 is my most heavily used landscape lens.
Do not buy a macro lens that does not have a tripod collar. The change in composition going from vertical to horizontal is too extreme at the macro level to be useful and the subject will run away while you recompose a shot without using a color.
I do not recommend buying something in the 50 mm range. To get near 1:1, you run out of working distance almost immediately. With insects, you'll freak them out.
The next most expensive option is a diopter. This is an accessory lens that you screw onto the front of your lens. If you will be doing occasional macro work, this can be a good option. It is a good way of easing into macro without the additional expense of buying an additional lens. The upside is that you can use you current lenses and you don't have a light loss penalty to deal with. The downside is that you are putting another piece of glass in front of you lens, which will degrade your image a bit. If you go this route, I would look at the Nikon or Canon diopters only, and their multielement ones at that. The older models and third party ones tend to be single element and nowhere near as sharp. It also makes the lens slightly frontheavy, which may of may not be a concern.
The next step would be extension tubes. They are relatively cheap and from a third party like Kenko, just as good as the major manufacturer versions. Just make sure that the ones you buy are metal, not plastic. They work by allowing you to focus closer than you ordinarily could, sort of like a fixed bellows (which you mentioned that you had experience with). The downside is that you lose focus at infinity. Also, if you use them with a zoom lens, you will need to refocus every time you zoom. Last, they are effectively useless below 50 mm. You wind up being too close to adequately light the subject.
Bellows: In all honestly, I'd try to avoid this option for field use. There are third party options that allow you to maintain the electical functions of the lens (aperature, especially), but they are in the price range of a macro lens and from experience, really not an efficient way to work in the field. Studio work, sure. Novaflex is a good third party brand to look at here.
I know Danny Burk shakes his head in sorrow when I mention what I have tried to do near 3:1 with my 4x5. I cannot image trying to do a similar thing with 35 based equipment, digital or film.
Reversing a lens: I'd rather use bellows in the field than doing this in the field. There are enough other good options that I think this can be avoided.
Canon's 65mm 1x-5x lens: I have dreams about this lens. If you are seriously considering the bellows or reversing a lens, I'd look at this lens instead. Buy a Canon body if you need to. You will need a macro flash to work with it in the field since light falloff and minimal working distance means very little light to work with. About $1,200-$1,600 used to new with flash.
Using the Nikon or Canon TS lens. Certainly worth considering, especially the 90 from either company. It is an option that I have considered. The Canon version will take a teleconverter, but I am not sure about the Nikon. I have not worked with this option as a macro tool but it is well regarded for this. Again, expensive and in the range of a 150-180-200 macro lens, if not more. On the positive side, it makes a great studio macro and landscape lens.
Lately, I have been using the Canon 300 f4 plus 37 mm of extension for macro work. It won't get me to 1:1 but works well for larger subject isolation. Mostly, it has been floral work the last couple of weeks.
Dave: I started my macro journey with some cheap close-up filters on a 100-300mm zoom. It was OK but as I got more interested I eventually bought a Minolta 100mm macro. I thought I had died and gone to heaven. Its an incredibly sharp lens, light and fast. However, I rarely use it anymore since I bought a 200mm Minolta in 2002. I really love the greater working distance and narrower angle of view of the 200. It is heavy but since I now own Sony cameras with image stabilization in the body I routinely shoot it hand held for butterflies, dragonflies and the like. On the tripod the collar is indispensable. I've not used the Sigma but am impressed with the reports and the results I see here every day. I do have tubes but only use them with my 300mm f2.8 if I really need more reach. I find using tubes on zoom lenses incredibly frustrating and never quick. If you go with the 180 I know you'll be happy and I'll also be looking for some posts on the finest Flora gallery on the planet. >=))>
Discussion
10 repliesWhere I used bellows previously, I have been considering the Sigma 180 macro. Of course since I mentioned to some of my friends it was under consideration, everybody has a different opinion on which route to take. Filters, bellows, tubes. While not seeing macro as a principal aspect of my work, I don't want to hamstring myself by not investing in versatile equipment.
Before laying the money for the Sigma perhaps members that are experienced in macro might offer a bit of guidance in the route to go.
Mark
I did try extension tubes on a zoom lens, but I did not like them - but honestly did not give them time to work for me.
I love it - buying the Sigma 180 macro made me a macro and flora shooter. If you look at my images in the flora gallery, all of them were made with the 180 macro. My wife likes the lens because it keeps me around the yard shooting!
Nathan
So, go with the 180 Sigma but there are those other options that still produce the goods.
Dedicated macro lenses are an easier way to go if you can afford it.
Here are some of my thoughts, partly geared towards a larger audience:
First, from any major manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony/Minolta, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron), there is no such thing as a bad macro lens. Everything out there new is great and you are just choosing your level of great.
If you will be doing a lot of macro work, I'd probably favor a true macro lens of the 90-105 or 150-180-200 variety. These lenses will get you to 1:1 without additional accessories. It is probably the cheapest and easiest dedicated way of getting to 1:1.
In this category, I'd probably favor the 150-180-200 lenses for the working distance which they provide. This does make a big difference when working with skittish subjects such as dragonflies and frogs. The downside is weight (at 1;1, they get pretty heavy to keep steady), extension tubes have less of an effect, and attaching a tube or two, plus a convertor and you have a pretty unwieldy monstrousity to handle. Relatively speaking, it is probably the most expensive option. Recommendation here: The Canon 180, Nikon 200 or Sigma 150.
The 90-105 lenses are a a good second choice. You do get some working distance, extension tubes have a more pronounced effect but greatly cut working distance, they are lighter and cheaper. I've also found that the 180, especially with a cropped sensor, is really tight indoors. I've done a lot of butterfly headshots with the 180 and cropped sensor, while with a 90-105, I could probably get the entire butterfly in. Recommendation: anyone, but Canon makes you buy the tripod collar separately.
The downside of buying a true macro is the cost. On the other hand, my 180 is my most heavily used landscape lens.
Do not buy a macro lens that does not have a tripod collar. The change in composition going from vertical to horizontal is too extreme at the macro level to be useful and the subject will run away while you recompose a shot without using a color.
I do not recommend buying something in the 50 mm range. To get near 1:1, you run out of working distance almost immediately. With insects, you'll freak them out.
The next most expensive option is a diopter. This is an accessory lens that you screw onto the front of your lens. If you will be doing occasional macro work, this can be a good option. It is a good way of easing into macro without the additional expense of buying an additional lens. The upside is that you can use you current lenses and you don't have a light loss penalty to deal with. The downside is that you are putting another piece of glass in front of you lens, which will degrade your image a bit. If you go this route, I would look at the Nikon or Canon diopters only, and their multielement ones at that. The older models and third party ones tend to be single element and nowhere near as sharp. It also makes the lens slightly frontheavy, which may of may not be a concern.
The next step would be extension tubes. They are relatively cheap and from a third party like Kenko, just as good as the major manufacturer versions. Just make sure that the ones you buy are metal, not plastic. They work by allowing you to focus closer than you ordinarily could, sort of like a fixed bellows (which you mentioned that you had experience with). The downside is that you lose focus at infinity. Also, if you use them with a zoom lens, you will need to refocus every time you zoom. Last, they are effectively useless below 50 mm. You wind up being too close to adequately light the subject.
Bellows: In all honestly, I'd try to avoid this option for field use. There are third party options that allow you to maintain the electical functions of the lens (aperature, especially), but they are in the price range of a macro lens and from experience, really not an efficient way to work in the field. Studio work, sure. Novaflex is a good third party brand to look at here.
I know Danny Burk shakes his head in sorrow when I mention what I have tried to do near 3:1 with my 4x5. I cannot image trying to do a similar thing with 35 based equipment, digital or film.
Reversing a lens: I'd rather use bellows in the field than doing this in the field. There are enough other good options that I think this can be avoided.
Canon's 65mm 1x-5x lens: I have dreams about this lens. If you are seriously considering the bellows or reversing a lens, I'd look at this lens instead. Buy a Canon body if you need to. You will need a macro flash to work with it in the field since light falloff and minimal working distance means very little light to work with. About $1,200-$1,600 used to new with flash.
Using the Nikon or Canon TS lens. Certainly worth considering, especially the 90 from either company. It is an option that I have considered. The Canon version will take a teleconverter, but I am not sure about the Nikon. I have not worked with this option as a macro tool but it is well regarded for this. Again, expensive and in the range of a 150-180-200 macro lens, if not more. On the positive side, it makes a great studio macro and landscape lens.
Lately, I have been using the Canon 300 f4 plus 37 mm of extension for macro work. It won't get me to 1:1 but works well for larger subject isolation. Mostly, it has been floral work the last couple of weeks.