Macro with the Sigma 60 F2.8

[Ontario Gone]

Just testing out some macro with controlled conditions at home tonight. I found trying this in daylight handheld proved troublesome as i didn't want to stop my lens down so far and i couldn't kill the light otherwise. Perhaps some filters may help.

Sigma 60 with 26mm tubes. Not quite closest focusing range, used tripod + wifi control, Di466 bounce flash. Im very happy with the pixel level performance of this lens and macro is one reason that is important to me. Enjoy and feel free to share. In case anybody is looking for an alternative to a dedicated macro lens, this is a $300 combination and is a great performer.








100% crop.

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

 

[Impulses]

Very nice, DoF doesn't seem quite as impossibly thin as some other examples I've seen lately. I'm actually very interested in getting the Sigma 60 with some occasional macro use in mind, what extension tubes are you using? I saw someone recommend Neewer tubes recently, they seem cheap enough on Amazon ($30-40), tho there's a couple different models and I've no clue what the difference is if any.

 

[Fredrik Glckner]

Very nice, DoF doesn't seem quite as impossibly thin as some other examples I've seen lately. I'm actually very interested in getting the Sigma 60 with some occasional macro use in mind, what extension tubes are you using? I saw someone recommend Neewer tubes recently, they seem cheap enough on Amazon ($30-40), tho there's a couple different models and I've no clue what the difference is if any.

If you do get the Neewer/Meike/Skyblye/etc macro rings, then be aware that they have somewhat glossy insides. You can easily overcome this by sanding their insides, see here:

Loss of contrast with macro rings?

I previously tested some cheap auto macro rings , and found them very useful for creating macro images and videos with ordinary lenses. Sinc...

m43photo.blogspot.com

This could improve their performance in some cases.

 

[Ontario Gone]

Very nice, DoF doesn't seem quite as impossibly thin as some other examples I've seen lately. I'm actually very interested in getting the Sigma 60 with some occasional macro use in mind, what extension tubes are you using? I saw someone recommend Neewer tubes recently, they seem cheap enough on Amazon ($30-40), tho there's a couple different models and I've no clue what the difference is if any.

I grabbed the Fotasy brand from Amazon. I was planning on getting the vello ones from B&H but changed my mind at the last minute since i bought my lens from Amazon too. I think there isn't much difference between brands, and the two prices you will find are either plastic/metal for the mount. I bought the metal mount version just to be safe. They are light weight and fit snug, everything works perfectly.

I wanted the Sigma anyway so i figure it was a cheap and easy way to get my macro with it. Im still testing out the Sigma at smaller apertures to see what sharpness is good enough for me but it's a great all around lens and works good with the tubes.

 

[Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson]

Very nice, DoF doesn't seem quite as impossibly thin as some other examples I've seen lately. I'm actually very interested in getting the Sigma 60 with some occasional macro use in mind, what extension tubes are you using? I saw someone recommend Neewer tubes recently, they seem cheap enough on Amazon ($30-40), tho there's a couple different models and I've no clue what the difference is if any.

I grabbed the Fotasy brand from Amazon. I was planning on getting the vello ones from B&H but changed my mind at the last minute since i bought my lens from Amazon too. I think there isn't much difference between brands, and the two prices you will find are either plastic/metal for the mount. I bought the metal mount version just to be safe. They are light weight and fit snug, everything works perfectly.

I wanted the Sigma anyway so i figure it was a cheap and easy way to get my macro with it. Im still testing out the Sigma at smaller apertures to see what sharpness is good enough for me but it's a great all around lens and works good with the tubes.

 

[007peter]

How much is that 26mm extention tube? Does it retain AF? or just a cheap manual ones?

 

[Ontario Gone]

How much is that 26mm extention tube? Does it retain AF? or just a cheap manual ones?

$66 on amazon right now, AF and auto aperture works.

 

[Ontario Gone]

Glad I could help. The sigma looks to be a great match for tubes.

 

[Jere Landis]

I can understand doing close up of one object and object being in focus. I cannot, however, understand why taking close up of multiple objects and only one or part of one being in focus. Please explain the reasoning behind this, thank you.

 

[GeorgianBay1939]

Very helpful!

Great way to show DOF of the combo!

Thanks,

Tom

 

[s_grins]

This is a macro with Sigma 2.6/90 MACRO lens (legacy) - uncropped, handheld, no flash





And this is a shot to compare - little sensor P&H camera, handheld, uncropped. As you see, small sensors are good for macros. It is easy to fit small thing into the small sensor than to fit small thing into big sensor.







--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

 

[s_grins]

How much is that 26mm extention tube? Does it retain AF? or just a cheap manual ones?

$66 on amazon right now, AF and auto aperture works.

 

[Ontario Gone]

I can understand doing close up of one object and object being in focus. I cannot, however, understand why taking close up of multiple objects and only one or part of one being in focus. Please explain the reasoning behind this, thank you.

Multiple issues here. First off, you won't have the DOF to keep it all in focus when shooting from an angle. Do you complain when a portrait doesn't have the ears and nose perfectly in focus? This is a function of DOF and you just have to deal with it. I could stop down to F22 or something but the shot would be much softer. As for the multiple object question, bokeh still offers some identity in a shot and the transition isn't instant, it's a slow gradient. I would rather have other coins in the shot, i think it looks better.

If you disagree let me ask you this. How would you know the other coins were actually coins? Because even though they are OOF, you can still tell what they are. Just because something is OOF doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the shot.

 

[dougjgreen1]

IMHO, the achromats are a much more convenient solution in the field than extension tubes are, and the quality is quite good in conjunction with the Sigma.

 

[Ontario Gone]

IMHO, the achromats are a much more convenient solution in the field than extension tubes are, and the quality is quite good in conjunction with the Sigma.

I understand your obsession with filters, and yes up close filters are a bit more convenient in that you don't have to remove the lens in the process (i have a set of cheap'os). But, i don't like adding glass to the light path if i don't have to, similar to how i'd rather use a stop faster SS than use an ND filter. Less glass will never reduce IQ, more glass might.

 

[dougjgreen1]

IMHO, the achromats are a much more convenient solution in the field than extension tubes are, and the quality is quite good in conjunction with the Sigma.

I understand your obsession with filters, and yes up close filters are a bit more convenient in that you don't have to remove the lens in the process (i have a set of cheap'os). But, i don't like adding glass to the light path if i don't have to, similar to how i'd rather use a stop faster SS than use an ND filter. Less glass will never reduce IQ, more glass might.

--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

Actually, my first choice is to use a dedicated legacy macro, or a dedicated modern macro lens.

The fact is, you'd post more accurate information if you stuck to content you had knowledge of, rather than claiming that the reason for my choice is my personal obsession with filters. It's not - it's purely based upon the fact that extension tubes degrade the image worse than any other choice you can make in macro. In this case, not having glass means you are not correcting for aberrations that the lens otherwise exhibits when focused outside of it's designed range.

As far as a quick and dirty solution when one does not have a dedicated macro lens, the fact is, using extension tubes with lenses that are not designed for extremely close focus will degrade the image more than any other solution - other than using cheap, uncorrected close-up filters - which are NOT what I'm talking about. Using color corrected 2 element achromats will FAR exceed the quality of using extension tubes in just about all cases. The only advantage of extension tubes is that they will get you closer when using a short focal length base lens. But edge performance with tubes will be terrible, and center performance is not so hot either.

The fact is, most non-macro lenses are only corrected for field curvature in the range that they are designed to focus. When you extend them to focus far closer, flat field correction goes out the window - that's the main reason most lenses don't focus close enough to do macro on their own and that's why extension tubes are actually responsible for significantly more image degradation than good achromat lenses are.

 

[dougjgreen1]

this comparison is instructive:

Macro Comparison

 

[Impulses]

this comparison is instructive:

http://www.ulrix-photo.de/misc/closeup/en/closeup.html

Very interesting, in that comparison I actually think the tube looks slightly better at the center than the close up lens, but it could just be because it seems to have slightly more contrast (and I'm looking at it on a washed out laptop screen)... It's no contest at the corners though, the close up lens clearly does a lot better than the tube.

The author himself goes on to say how tubes work better under other conditions w/longer lenses etc, I imagine if you aren't shooting something flat or don't care about the corners because of a shallow DoF then it can be more of a toss up... The achromat lenses definitely seem easier to use on the field, just pop it on and go huh, little more expensive but not a whole lot.

 

[Impulses]

Very nice, DoF doesn't seem quite as impossibly thin as some other examples I've seen lately. I'm actually very interested in getting the Sigma 60 with some occasional macro use in mind, what extension tubes are you using? I saw someone recommend Neewer tubes recently, they seem cheap enough on Amazon ($30-40), tho there's a couple different models and I've no clue what the difference is if any.

If you do get the Neewer/Meike/Skyblye/etc macro rings, then be aware that they have somewhat glossy insides. You can easily overcome this by sanding their insides, see here:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2014/02/loss-of-contrast-with-macro-rings.html

This could improve their performance in some cases.

Ahh, I now see those are mostly plastic whereas the Fotasy/Fotga ones going for slightly more ($50-65) have metal mounts... I don't necessarily think a metal mount on a plastic part means it's better built but I guess if they're spending a little more they might have better QC or tolerances? Dunno, OTOH there's one complaint about getting too tight of a fit w/the Fotga and looking back there's been a few similar comments on the boards (though w/other mirrorless mounts I think, not M43).

I grabbed the Fotasy brand from Amazon. I was planning on getting the vello ones from B&H but changed my mind at the last minute since i bought my lens from Amazon too. I think there isn't much difference between brands, and the two prices you will find are either plastic/metal for the mount. I bought the metal mount version just to be safe. They are light weight and fit snug, everything works perfectly.

I wanted the Sigma anyway so i figure it was a cheap and easy way to get my macro with it. Im still testing out the Sigma at smaller apertures to see what sharpness is good enough for me but it's a great all around lens and works good with the tubes.

 

[dougjgreen1]

Very nice, DoF doesn't seem quite as impossibly thin as some other examples I've seen lately. I'm actually very interested in getting the Sigma 60 with some occasional macro use in mind, what extension tubes are you using? I saw someone recommend Neewer tubes recently, they seem cheap enough on Amazon ($30-40), tho there's a couple different models and I've no clue what the difference is if any.

If you do get the Neewer/Meike/Skyblye/etc macro rings, then be aware that they have somewhat glossy insides. You can easily overcome this by sanding their insides, see here:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2014/02/loss-of-contrast-with-macro-rings.html

This could improve their performance in some cases.

Ahh, I now see those are mostly plastic whereas the Fotasy/Fotga ones going for slightly more ($50-65) have metal mounts... I don't necessarily think a metal mount on a plastic part means it's better built but I guess if they're spending a little more they might have better QC or tolerances? Dunno, OTOH there's one complaint about getting too tight of a fit w/the Fotga and looking back there's been a few similar comments on the boards (though w/other mirrorless mounts I think, not M43).

I grabbed the Fotasy brand from Amazon. I was planning on getting the vello ones from B&H but changed my mind at the last minute since i bought my lens from Amazon too. I think there isn't much difference between brands, and the two prices you will find are either plastic/metal for the mount. I bought the metal mount version just to be safe. They are light weight and fit snug, everything works perfectly.

I wanted the Sigma anyway so i figure it was a cheap and easy way to get my macro with it. Im still testing out the Sigma at smaller apertures to see what sharpness is good enough for me but it's a great all around lens and works good with the tubes.