Can Anybody Recommend a Macro/Telephoto Lens?

10/21/2005 12:56:23 AM · #26

Originally posted by jpeters:

Ok, so what is the difference between these two lenses (other than the aperture and focal length range)?

Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF

Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D

The one lens you should definitely stay away from is the G version of the 70-300 (zoom telephoto 70-300 f4-5.6 G). It's cheap (in all meanings of cheap). I got it with my D70 originally because they told me it was a good "starter" telephoto, but it just doesn't work well. Get a better lens if you can afford it.

10/21/2005 01:08:58 AM · #27

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by jpeters:
Ok, so what is the difference between these two lenses (other than the aperture and focal length range)?

Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D

The one lens you should definitely stay away from is the G version of the 70-300 (zoom telephoto 70-300 f4-5.6 G). It's cheap (in all meanings of cheap). I got it with my D70 originally because they told me it was a good "starter" telephoto, but it just doesn't work well. Get a better lens if you can afford it.

Are you refering to the lens I mentioned or a different one? I could not find a G version.

Message edited by author 2005-10-21 01:10:42.

10/21/2005 01:12:07 AM · #28

Originally posted by jpeters:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by jpeters:
Ok, so what is the difference between these two lenses (other than the aperture and focal length range)?

Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF

Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D

The one lens you should definitely stay away from is the G version of the 70-300 (zoom telephoto 70-300 f4-5.6 G). It's cheap (in all meanings of cheap). I got it with my D70 originally because they told me it was a good "starter" telephoto, but it just doesn't work well. Get a better lens if you can afford it.

Are you refering to the lens I mentioned or a different one? I could not find a G version.

I think they are different lenses, but I'm not sure. The one I have reads "Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 G" which is different from what you wrote, but close enough that I though I'd warn you not to buy it (the G lens).

trying to link to the lens in question at BH Photo

Message edited by author 2005-10-21 01:17:05.

10/21/2005 01:16:27 AM · #29

Originally posted by ursula:

I forgot to mention earlier, but have since corrected it, but the lenses I was asking about are Sigma lenses. Do you still caution against that one?

10/21/2005 01:19:45 AM · #30

I only have one Sigma (the 105 macro) and I would recommend it to anyone anytime. The Sigma 105 macro for Nikon is WONDERFUL!

The one I'm cautioning you against is the G version of the 70-300 mmm Nikkor. It's cheap (about 130$ american), and it's cheap in how it works and the quality of the pictures. You get what you pay for, and 130$ for a zoom-telephoto is not much. Get a better one if you can afford it.

10/21/2005 01:23:16 AM · #31

Originally posted by ursula:

Yeah, the Sigmas are closer to $300. I know that still isn't a whole lot of money, but I figured they should be fairly decent at that price.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

10/21/2005 01:24:48 AM · #32

Originally posted by jpeters:

Originally posted by ursula:
I only have one Sigma (the 105 macro) and I would recommend it to anyone anytime. The Sigma 105 macro for Nikon is WONDERFUL!

The one I'm cautioning you against is the G version of the 70-300 mmm Nikkor. It's cheap (about 130$ american), and it's cheap in how it works and the quality of the pictures. You get what you pay for, and 130$ for a zoom-telephoto is not much. Get a better one if you can afford it.

Yeah, the Sigmas are closer to $300. I know that still isn't a whole lot of money, but I figured they should be fairly decent at that price.

Sorry, I didn't realize the lenses you were talking about were Sigmas. I don't know anything about the two you mention.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

10/21/2005 01:36:44 AM · #33

Jeff

There are many images close to what you're looking for taken with the Sigma 105mm based on your samples.

It can do bug heads and portraits as well. Sharp as a tack and the price is right. I used it as a walk around lens for a few weeks and had a blast.

Happy hunting.

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

10/21/2005 02:12:39 AM · #34

The Sigma 70-300mm APO DG is one helluva lens for the money. Don't let the cheap price scare you, it rocks.

A good many of the images in this gallery were taken with this lens. (the first 3 images are availble in "original" size.)

//www.pbase.com/mcmurma/airshow

Check the exif for f-stops and lens length.

And about it's macro capapbility? Well, I have only tried a few images but it does do nice closeups, and its reach makes it a good choice if you like to capture insects.

M.O.C.

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/21/2005 02:17:13 AM · #35

Here are some pics with the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro with both the macro and the telephoto features.

Message edited by author 2005-10-21 04:45:47.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/21/2005 02:34:44 AM · #36

Originally posted by longlivenyhc:

sigma 105mm macro. able to get 1:1 ratio. not sure what the closest focus on it is, but when i use it, it seems to be about an inch from the lens.

some pictures i took with the 105mm

When a manufacturer quotes a "closest focusing distance" for a lens, it's the distance from the imaging plane (film or sensor) to the subject that he's defining. That's different from your "working distance", which is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject at closest focus. So, for example, if your camera body is a couple inches thick and your lens, at full extension, is 6 inches long, then if your stated closest focusing distance was 12 inches, you'd have a 4-inch working distance. This is where the confusion comes in.

The Canon 100mm macro delivers 1:1 at a focusing distance of about 4 inches less than their 60mm macro, but the lens itself is more than 2 inches longer, so the actual working distance is not that much different, see?

Robt.

longlivenyhc

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

10/21/2005 04:59:12 AM · #37

yeah, i understand the working distance and closest focus distance stuff. the minimum is 12.3inches on the sigma. i dont know what the working distance is though, never stopped to measure it. i know when im setting up some macro shots i have to be careful i dont bang the front of the lens against whatever it is im photographing.

otherwise i would of crushed this little guy =)

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

10/21/2005 09:52:49 AM · #38

I know I already asked this once in this thread, but the question got buried and I thought I would ask it again for the daytime crowd:

What is the difference in these two lenses (bsides focal length and aperture)?

Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/21/2005 11:35:56 AM · #39

Originally posted by jpeters:

The 28-300mm is often referred to as a "super-zoom" lens... one that covers a range once thought impossible for a single lense to cover. (You asked, so I will tell you what I have heard of this lens, but tell you now that I have not used it!) It has a moderate wide-angle at 28mm (which is more of a normal view on DSLR) a decent telephoto at 300mm, and, of course, everything in between.

This particular lens gets reasonable reviews. It does not get the RAVE reviews of the 70-300 APO. It apparently makes a pretty good "one-size fits everything" kind of lens. Some folks are really into that, as they NEVER want to change lenses. If you are one of those then buy this lens and call it good. Optical quality will probably be just fine.

The 70-300mm is also something of a superzoom, but I have used this lens and can say first hand that it is an excellent bargain. In fact, I'm not quite sure why Simga dont stick an HSM motor in it, jack up the price by about $300, slap an EX label on it, and market it with the rest of their premium lenses. It certainly has the optical quality, though professionals will find the present AF system lacking. (I'm quite sure the AF on the 28-300 is just as bad, though. Consumer zooms NEVER carry the really good AF motors.)

Bottom line: MOST modern lenses are quite good. Remarks about optical quality are often so much pixel-peeping and nit picking--actual use sees very little difference. Either of these will probably work fine. Are you more into the superior quality optics, or a more versatile lens?

Message edited by author 2005-10-21 11:37:31.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

10/21/2005 02:26:35 PM · #40

I have an 18-70mm, so i'm not concerned about the 28-70mm difference in the two. I guess I was more concerned with the potential optical quality, ruggedness, and what APO means.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

10/21/2005 02:44:41 PM · #41

Must add my comments to those who have recommended the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. You won't beat it on value for money. I leave mine on the camera as my walk around lens and for Macro you get 1:2 or 1/2 life size.

Check out:

for Macro at 300mm

You can also do Macro at 200mm which I think is about 1:3

Hope this helps.

Steve

Prof_Fate

10/21/2005 02:46:58 PM · #42

Each compnay has a name for their 'technology' or models, etc.
L is hte designation Canon uses for it's Pro level lenses. USM is their ultrasonic motor for focusing.
Sigma uses EX for their pro lenses and HSM for their hypersonic motor for focuing.
For all of Sigma's names and definitions see their site

As for APO, they say :

APO lenses. These lenses use apochromatic design and Special Low Dispersion glass (SLD) for minimum color aberration and ultimate telephoto image quality, improving contrast and sharpness.

Apochromatic (APO) telephoto lenses greatly minimize color aberration, a phenomenon created by different wave lengths of light refracting at different angles. This causes each color to have a slightly different imaging point, resulting in poor image quality.

APO Zoom Macros offer up to 1:2 magnification in the telephoto range with instant shifting from normal to macro shooting.

APO Tele-Macros offer 1:3 image size close focus, long thought to be impossible for a telephoto lens â�� and are no larger than a fixed focal lens of the same class.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

10/21/2005 02:55:03 PM · #43

so the Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D sounds like a heck of a lens for the money. If I get this, what should I do with the extra $180 in my budget? Or is there another comparable but better lens for me to look at?

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

10/21/2005 02:58:37 PM · #44

Originally posted by jpeters:

The Sigma is good, make sure it is the latest version, and buy some filters with the change! :)

Steve

Prof_Fate

10/21/2005 03:07:34 PM · #45

Hmmm...$180.
Optech pro strap ($16 or so) is a GREAT neck strap, TONS better than the factory piece of crap.
Memory cards...
Got a good tripod and head? Not sure if $180 is enough, but add some to it and you'll be bale to get a nice setup.
Remote trigger/shutter release? You'll find it handy for macro shots.
I got a memory wallet type of thing - holds 8 or 12 CF cards, two sets of 4 AA batts and has room for a spare camera battery, and it can attach to my belt. $12 or something (tenba brand).

Oh yeah, the Sigma lens will come with a carrying case that can be attached to your belt. I use mine all the time. saves carrying a whole backpack when i'm out on 'short' adventures.

Get this lens

NOT this one

Message edited by author 2005-10-21 15:08:41.