Anyone use 500D on the Sigma 70-300 APO DG?

[GadgetNeil]

I have the sigma 70-300, which has a macro setting, but it's not true 1:1 macro. So, I have been considering getting a macro lens - was going to get the Canon 60mm, but it suddenly jumped up in price (from $340 to $400) about a week or 2 ago. I may get the Sigma 105mm macro - about $360 from sigma4less -it seems to have excellent reviews, and is quite a bit cheaper than the canon 100mm macro.

My question now is: should I just get the 500D close up lens/filter and use it on my 70-300? Has anyone used that combo? Also, if I use the 70-300 at the macro setting, will it work with the 500D? I was thinking that since the 70-300 takes 58 mm filters, then I could even use the 500D with the sigma 105 if I eventually get it (or with the canon 100 mm). For that matter, has anyone used the 500D with one of these 100/105 mm macro lenses? How much closer than 1:1 does it get you?

 

[marsbar]

Hay,

Close up lenses are good for a quick, easy modification to a lens for doing macro. They don't require changing lenses, nor removing the lens. But the Impact on IQ will be a negative if you do macro frequently. Close up lenses have a greater impact on telephoto lenses, in terms of magnification. The 500D should allow you to get x0.6 or 1:1.66 magnification at 300mm on your sigma 70-300mm

Extension tubes are another option. Because they contain only air, they will won't have an impact on IQ, though any lens flaws will be magnified. They do require you to remove lens and re-attach. They are better used on shorter lenses, but nothing stopping you from using it on a longer lens.

Both close-up lenses and extension tubes remove the lenses ability to reach infinity focus.

A true macro lens is what is in store if you plan to do macro a lot. They don't need to have anything attached to them, and can focus from 1:1 to infinity.

The Sigma is a good choice, its about 150g lighter than the Canon. And it has comparable IQ. The Sigma also comes with a lens hood, which is good not only for blocking light, but for gripping the lens.

I don't have any experience with using a close up lens on a macro lens. I'm sure its been done. I think you do need at least a +10 Dioptres close up lens to have any effect on a macro lens. But If I needed to get closer than 1:1, I would probably get the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8. Though I have rarely found the need to get any closer with my subjects.

--

 

[GadgetNeil]

marsbar wrote:
The 500D should allow you to get

x0.6 or 1:1.66 magnification at 300mm on your sigma 70-300mm

So I wouldn't even get to true 1:1? (sorry, but I'm new to this - am I correct in understanding that 1:1.66 is less magnified than 1:1 (and greater magnification would be 2:1, 3:1, etc)?

My indecision relates to your point that the macro lens is best if I'm going to shoot macro a lot - the issue is, I don't know if I will shoot a lot of macro, because I am completely new to it so far. Then again, from seeing all the amazing macro shots on this forum, I am very keen to try my hand at it. Also (here goes the rationalization I'll give my wife for the purchase) from what I see of the used lens sales on Craigslist, I could probably sell the lens (if I don't end up using it much) for about what I paid for it.

 

[SteB]

It is a common misconception that because extension tubes contain no glass that they don't effect image quality. Normallyl lenses are only corrected for longer focusing distances and macro lens have special floating groups that correct optical problems such as spherical abberration that tends to occur at these close focusing distances. When you bring a lens into focus using extension tubes at a much closer focusing distance than it is corrected for then these optical aberrations start to degrade image quality.

Generally my experience is that good quality achromatic close-up lenses often have less impact on image quality than extension tubes.

 

[marsbar]

x0.6 or 1:1.66 magnification at 300mm on your sigma 70-300mm

So I wouldn't even get to true 1:1? (sorry, but I'm new to this - am
I correct in understanding that 1:1.66 is less magnified than 1:1
(and greater magnification would be 2:1, 3:1, etc)?

No you would not get true macro, but 1.1.6 is quite close, you will have objects 35mm in length, fill the frame.

My indecision relates to your point that the macro lens is best if
I'm going to shoot macro a lot - the issue is, I don't know if I will
shoot a lot of macro, because I am completely new to it so far. Then
again, from seeing all the amazing macro shots on this forum, I am
very keen to try my hand at it. Also (here goes the rationalization
I'll give my wife for the purchase) from what I see of the used lens
sales on Craigslist, I could probably sell the lens (if I don't end
up using it much) for about what I paid for it.

Your reasoning sounds good to me (and hopefully for you wife too).

I never bothered with extension tubes or close-up lenses, after I heard about all the compromises with them. I went right for a macro lens, and got the Sigma 150mm f/2.8. I could not be happier. Macro lenses are not just good for macro, but also for normal photography. They are very sharp, and so can be used quite well for portraits and wildlife photography.

--