tankm
Senior Member
Currently have the 105mm macro, was thinking about the 180 or 200mm macro.
Have a discussion with a friend, his conclusion is the $$$ amount spent on it is not really worth it. Here is why...
One consideration he point out was the distance between the subject and the front of lens, which is computed as min_focus_distance - lens_length.
SIGMA 105mm Macro (Currently have)
Subject to front of lens distance = 31.3cm (Min Focus) - 9.75cm (Length) = 21.5cm
Weight = 457g
SIGMA 180mm Macro.
Subject to front of lens distance = 46cm (Min focus) - 18.2cm (Length) = 27.8cm
Weight = 965g
Almost double the weight and price for just an extra 6.3 cm. I believe for the 200mm as well, the actual increase in working distance is less than 10cm as well.
On spec for the 180mm, the minimum focus distance increases 50% but the lens length increase is almost 90%, hence the true increase of the subject to front of lens is much lesser than expected.
Will like to hear from those who have used the 180 or 200mm macro, is it worth considering ? What's the advantages over a 105mm macro on actual field usage ?
Have a discussion with a friend, his conclusion is the $$$ amount spent on it is not really worth it. Here is why...
One consideration he point out was the distance between the subject and the front of lens, which is computed as min_focus_distance - lens_length.
SIGMA 105mm Macro (Currently have)
Subject to front of lens distance = 31.3cm (Min Focus) - 9.75cm (Length) = 21.5cm
Weight = 457g
SIGMA 180mm Macro.
Subject to front of lens distance = 46cm (Min focus) - 18.2cm (Length) = 27.8cm
Weight = 965g
Almost double the weight and price for just an extra 6.3 cm. I believe for the 200mm as well, the actual increase in working distance is less than 10cm as well.
On spec for the 180mm, the minimum focus distance increases 50% but the lens length increase is almost 90%, hence the true increase of the subject to front of lens is much lesser than expected.
Will like to hear from those who have used the 180 or 200mm macro, is it worth considering ? What's the advantages over a 105mm macro on actual field usage ?
