blurboiboi
Senior Member
how about this combi?
50-200 zuiko plus a EX25 extension tube....
50-200 zuiko plus a EX25 extension tube....
macro lenses advice - Sigma 105mm 2.8 or Sigma 150mm 2.8?
- Thread starter headfonz
- Start date
- Status
microcosm
Senior Member
You asked... so... :bsmilie:
Hmm, the 150/f2 is really a piece of work.
Now to find that three thousand smackers...
hmm, that combo doesn't go anywhere near 1x magnification. max is 0.49x at 50mm, so i'm better off with my 50 f2.
i thought should invest in a proper macro lens since its one of the many aspects of photography that i enjoy shooting more. even though the hit ratio is lower compared to street shooting, its the process (walking in parks and reserves looking for the little buggers) that i enjoy the most.
ya man...i second that
microcosm
Senior Member
Now I know what caused the movement in the bushes.... :bsmilie:
holidaydom
New Member
As promised, here a photo using the 105mm at f4.0, 1/320 sec, ISO 400, available light from a window. PS'ed to +10 contrast and +3 saturation and noise removal.
NatureTTL
Member
Hi headfonz,
Glad to know someone who is interested in macro, wish I could have a macro outing with you one of these days.
I have the ZD50f2.0 and later purchased the Sig. 150mmf2.8 (the longest macro lens available for 4/3rd mount at that time, March 2007, and also at present moment),
I would have grab the 180mm or longer lens if Sigma have one for 4/3rd, mainly because of the longer working distance. Having said that, I have missed quite a number of shots using the 150mm but more using the ZD50.
Depends on your shooting style, for me 90+% of my jobs are done on tripod, therefore, weight is not an issue for me. As you have mentioned "what is apparent is that the bokeh / oof highlights of the 150 f2.8 is smoother" and also because of the longer focal length, smaller angle of view, there will be less distracting background meaning better subject isolation (hope you understand what I'm saying). Another very useful features found on the 150mm, not on the 50 nor the 105mm and also the later ZD100mm as I assumed, is the tripod collar (again, if you mount you setup on tripod). It allows you to composed you frame by the turn of a knob and the whole lens without changing the viewing angle.
You can pickup the 105mm if portability and weight is you main concern (image quality wise I'm not so particular), otherwise, if you are serious about macro, do go for the longest lens you can afford. IMHO, in regardless of any macro lens used at that 1:1 magnification, to shoot handheld and have sharp images at ambient lighting the successful rate is very low. On a separate note, the Birders always said that the 500mm is better than the 400mm and the 600mm is better than the 500mm, in terms of reach. The longest lens is always too short.
You can test drive my 150mm out field if we had the chance (trying to poison you :bsmilie
Cheers..
NatureTTL
Glad to know someone who is interested in macro, wish I could have a macro outing with you one of these days.
I have the ZD50f2.0 and later purchased the Sig. 150mmf2.8 (the longest macro lens available for 4/3rd mount at that time, March 2007, and also at present moment),
I would have grab the 180mm or longer lens if Sigma have one for 4/3rd, mainly because of the longer working distance. Having said that, I have missed quite a number of shots using the 150mm but more using the ZD50.
Depends on your shooting style, for me 90+% of my jobs are done on tripod, therefore, weight is not an issue for me. As you have mentioned "what is apparent is that the bokeh / oof highlights of the 150 f2.8 is smoother" and also because of the longer focal length, smaller angle of view, there will be less distracting background meaning better subject isolation (hope you understand what I'm saying). Another very useful features found on the 150mm, not on the 50 nor the 105mm and also the later ZD100mm as I assumed, is the tripod collar (again, if you mount you setup on tripod). It allows you to composed you frame by the turn of a knob and the whole lens without changing the viewing angle.
You can pickup the 105mm if portability and weight is you main concern (image quality wise I'm not so particular), otherwise, if you are serious about macro, do go for the longest lens you can afford. IMHO, in regardless of any macro lens used at that 1:1 magnification, to shoot handheld and have sharp images at ambient lighting the successful rate is very low. On a separate note, the Birders always said that the 500mm is better than the 400mm and the 600mm is better than the 500mm, in terms of reach. The longest lens is always too short.
You can test drive my 150mm out field if we had the chance (trying to poison you :bsmilie
Cheers..
NatureTTL
microcosm
Senior Member
As promised, here a photo using the 105mm at f4.0, 1/320 sec, ISO 400, available light from a window. PS'ed to +10 contrast and +3 saturation and noise removal.
Super KAWAIII!!!! Nice shot... but I wished the DOF was even deeper to include the nose... very nicely shot! More more more... but post in the Olympus gallery please...
microcosm
Senior Member
Hi headfonz,
Glad to know someone who is interested in macro, wish I could have a macro outing with you one of these days.
I have the ZD50f2.0 and later purchased the Sig. 150mmf2.8 (the longest macro lens available for 4/3rd mount at that time, March 2007, and also at present moment),
I would have grab the 180mm or longer lens if Sigma have one for 4/3rd, mainly because of the longer working distance. Having said that, I have missed quite a number of shots using the 150mm but more using the ZD50.
Depends on your shooting style, for me 90+% of my jobs are done on tripod, therefore, weight is not an issue for me. As you have mentioned "what is apparent is that the bokeh / oof highlights of the 150 f2.8 is smoother" and also because of the longer focal length, smaller angle of view, there will be less distracting background meaning better subject isolation (hope you understand what I'm saying). Another very useful features found on the 150mm, not on the 50 nor the 105mm and also the later ZD100mm as I assumed, is the tripod collar (again, if you mount you setup on tripod). It allows you to composed you frame by the turn of a knob and the whole lens without changing the viewing angle.
You can pickup the 105mm if portability and weight is you main concern (image quality wise I'm not so particular), otherwise, if you are serious about macro, do go for the longest lens you can afford. IMHO, in regardless of any macro lens used at that 1:1 magnification, to shoot handheld and have sharp images at ambient lighting the successful rate is very low. On a separate note, the Birders always said that the 500mm is better than the 400mm and the 600mm is better than the 500mm, in terms of reach. The longest lens is always too short.
You can test drive my 150mm out field if we had the chance (trying to poison you :bsmilie
Cheers..
NatureTTL
I believe this is because in macro you sometimes have to close the aperture till f11 to get that DOF right? This means you end up using a lot of flash work instead...
Dude, can you post a picture of your setup one day if you don't mind sharing? I like the "transformer" look of your setup!
holidaydom
New Member
Thanks bro
The relatively shallow DOF was intentional to give focus to the eyes as compared to an "everything sharp" photo. I think it helps impart a certain feel to the overall photo...
Will put this up as a lens review ASAP...
I need to pull my head out of work to start giving back to the Oly community ;p
microcosm
Senior Member
Thanks bro
The relatively shallow DOF was intentional to give focus to the eyes as compared to an "everything sharp" photo. I think it helps impart a certain feel to the overall photo...
Will put this up as a lens review ASAP...
I need to pull my head out of work to start giving back to the Oly community ;p
Yes please!
thanks alan, i'll be more than happy to tag along with with you on a macro outing to "pai ni wei shi" :bsmilie:. lots tolearn from you.
great shot there! may i find out what kind of distance were you from the frog?
Thanks bro
The relatively shallow DOF was intentional to give focus to the eyes as compared to an "everything sharp" photo. I think it helps impart a certain feel to the overall photo...
Will put this up as a lens review ASAP...
I need to pull my head out of work to start giving back to the Oly community ;p
sounds good, btw, the canine portrait is :thumbsup:
scarly the radiation hit the camera set up,like the handphone in the movie,then it transform,wah lao eh,imagine what a transformed camera can do,lol,blind people with super flashes
for 500D, the working distance is 1 feet.
thanks for sharing!
Here have more Sigma 105 sample pictures.. E-330 Plus the Sigma 105/2.8
:thumbsup: like this one, the flowers are "popping out" very 3D
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked