Which Lens

--Just got a 40d with the kit lens. I want to get another lens and I am trying to pick between these two. I want to be able to use macro, but would also like the ability to zoom, i know the lengths are a big difference but what do you all think i should start with the kit lens gets me to 125 x the 1.6 however I think macro is cool and I know a more narrow range is usually better but I think having the ability to go past 125 would be nice...I have about a 300-400 dollar budget.

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

or

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Ultra Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

You will get a lot of opinions on this question. My advice is if you are going to stick with Canon or any other brand buy good glass. If you want to shoot macro buy a fast canon macro lens like the 100m 2.8. If you buy a compromise lens you will end up replacing it eventually. The same advice goes for a zoom lens.

Steve
--
http://vette74.smugmug.com

Neither of the two lenses you mentioned are true macro lenses. They are close focusing lenses. The Sigma 17-70mm focuses down to 7.9 inches and yields a macro ration of 1:2.3, which is a bit less than half life sized. A true macro goes to 1:1 which yields a life sized image. Probably the best budget lens which gets you close to true macro is the Tamron 70-300mm LD Macro. This gives you a 1:2 macro ration (half life sized) at the 180-300mm range. It's also easy on the budget at about $150 or so new and is decently sharp even at the tele end, albeit a bit slow.

--
John
Pentax K100D/K200D, Panasonic TZ3/LZ8, Oly Stylus
http://www.pbase.com/jglover
WSSA #141

Personally, I wouldn't bother. Most zooms that claim to be macro just aren't and are not really designed to be. True macro lenses have floating elements designed to move for close range correction. They are generally fixed focal length. Zoom lenses are already compromises and then to try to make them a macro lens? Most zooms that label themselves macro do a very poor job at it whenever I've had the dissatisfaction of trying to work with them.

Tamron and Sigma make very good 90 and 105 macro lenses quite within your budget. That would be the way to go. Also the wonderful Sigma 150 f2.8 APO Macro lens is fantastic at $589 which is fairly inexpensive for a good lens. Personally, I think it's better in quality than any macro Canon lens on the market. Macro is a lot of fun, but you need to approach it with the purchase of a real macro lens, or consider a Canon 500 closeup filter on a Canon 50 f1.8 lens.
--
Cheers, Craig

Photos shot with 5D & Canon 100mm 2.8







Steve
http://vette74.smugmug.com

Steve Grodin said:

Photos shot with 5D & Canon 100mm 2.8

Steve

Click to expand...

--
I guess I would call those 'still life', not 'macro'. - TF

Here is what is in Wikipeida about macro photography. Generally it has been agreed that 1:2 or 1:1 is genuine macro. As you will see in the following, the term macro has been appropriated so that the manufacture can lie; there is no zoom capable of true macro - but they will do close up.

"Macro photography is close-up photography. The classical definition is that the image projected on the "film plane" (i.e., film or a digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame. Most 35mm format macro lenses achieve at least 1:2, that is to say, the image on the film is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed. Many 35mm macro lenses are 1:1, meaning the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed. Another important distinction is that lenses designed for macro are usually at their sharpest at macro focus distances and are not quite as sharp at other focus distances.

In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers."
--
Rationally I have no hope, irrationally I believe in miracles.
Joni Mitchell

rsn48 said:

Here is what is in Wikipeida about macro photography. Generally it
has been agreed that 1:2 or 1:1 is genuine macro. As you will see in
the following, the term macro has been appropriated so that the
manufacture can lie; there is no zoom capable of true macro - but
they will do close up.

"Macro photography is close-up photography. The classical definition
is that the image projected on the "film plane" (i.e., film or a
digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject. On 35 mm
film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply
on a small area approaching the size of the film frame. Most 35mm
format macro lenses achieve at least 1:2, that is to say, the image
on the film is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed. Many
35mm macro lenses are 1:1, meaning the image on the film is the same
size as the object being photographed. Another important distinction
is that lenses designed for macro are usually at their sharpest at
macro focus distances and are not quite as sharp at other focus
distances.

In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material
to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a
regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or
larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately
1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers."

Click to expand...

I agree that we have outgrown 1:1 as a definition of what's macro and what's not. It is too limiting, and is not useful now that so many very good macro cameras take images on sensors so much smaller than 35mm film frames.

My own definition of "macro" is like the one above, and also depends on the size of the PRINT more than the size of the image on the sensor. After all, we do not view sensor-sized images anymore, so ALL of the magnification that makes the macro picture so detailed as it is....

.... takes place as the print is enlarged or the image thrown on a screen.

Therefore, I suggest that...

" A macro photograph is a close-up picture where the print in the hand, or image on the screen, is larger and more detailed than the actual subject ITSELF would be, were it viewed from the same distance. "

I'm pleased with this definition because it works for all sensors regardless of size.. indeed, the sensor doesn't feature at all.
--
Regards,
Baz

I think the important thing is that the OP is aware that if they bought for example the Sigma 17-70 that while they would get a macro function, that they are aware of it's limitations. If they have been looking at images taken on a 1:1 macro lens, then results on the 17-70 may be a disappointment, otherwise the Sigma has had some decent reviews for a lens in this price range. I know this because it's an option I've been looking at too. Possibly replace my 18-55 kit lens with a versatile lens like the 17-70 Sigma or go with a "true" macro lens. I think whichever way I go I'll wish I'd bought the other one!!!

For those that want to enter into the macro world, the definition is important. Close up creates some super photos, I'm not putting down close up, but its not fair to some one to get a lens and thinks they can get macro photos with it.

Its kind of like ring flashes. There are macro ring flashes and portrait ring flashes, two entirely different beasts. I read some reviews of guys - obviously not knowing what they were talking about or trying it - rated a macro flash ring as also excellent for portraits. Now what you need to know about macro ring flashes is that they are good to about two feet - guide number of 46 at 100 ISO - and aren't at all useful for portrait photography.

--
Rationally I have no hope, irrationally I believe in miracles.
Joni Mitchell

--

So should I maybe get a decent zoom lens 70-300 or 28-300 and wait a few months and get a true macro lens?

My wife ordered the Sigma, and while I am excited to get it I think possibly buying the tamaron 70-300 LD first for pretty cheap would be good and then saving some more to get a macro.

This will be my first lens other than kit, and I like being able to take close up pictures but I am begining to understand that for macro a fixed lens is better than something with zoom...and those are more expensive.

Thanks for the help.

I think that would be a great idea. You will have a lot of fun with a real macro lens. I might suggest either Canon's 100 f2.8 Macro or Tamron's 90 f2.8 Macro. The Tamron is considers a fantastic lens optically. The reason it's cheap is that the build quality isn't up there.

And, I'd stay away from Zoom macros. They tend to lose a lot when you try to focus close. There's just too much compromise and they really aren't real macro lenses anyway.

I'd define macro as 1:1 or 1:2, but even moreso Macro lenses have floating elements which allow for close range correction. This keeps the plane of focus flat as you focus closer and closer.

For people to define macro as far as the print goes, any lens could be macro. I could take a bird at 100 yards wtih my 500mm lens and blow up the eye to fill an 8x10 sheet and call that macro. Pure silliness, IMO. It would be a horrible shot, I'm sure, and nobody would call it macro photography. Nikon really has it right when they don't use the term at all. Nikon has always called it Micro and all their Micro lenses are 1:1. Even the older 1:2 Micros came with an extension tube to get to 1:1. I bought one new in the late 60s or early 70s as I remember. It's a 55 f3.5 Mircro Nikkor and came with an extrension tube. I still use it today.

My 60mm f2.8 AFD lens is on the left and my old 55 f3.5 AI converted with tube is on the right.



--
Cheers, Craig

Guidenet said:

For people to define macro as far as the print goes, any lens could
be macro. I could take a bird at 100 yards wtih my 500mm lens and
blow up the eye to fill an 8x10 sheet and call that macro. Pure
silliness, IMO. It would be a horrible shot, I'm sure, and nobody
would call it macro photography. Nikon really has it right when they
don't use the term at all. Nikon has always called it Micro and all
their Micro lenses are 1:1. Even the older 1:2 Micros came with an
extension tube to get to 1:1. I bought one new in the late 60s or
early 70s as I remember. It's a 55 f3.5 Mircro Nikkor and came with
an extrension tube. I still use it today.

Click to expand...

I bought a 55 f2.8 around 1985 and I had to buy my tubes separately (and I still use them today too). That's a good lens.

--
Leonard Migliore

Leonard Migliore said:

Guidenet wrote:

Click to expand...

snip

Leonard Migliore said:

Leonard Migliore said:

........ It's a 55 f3.5 Mircro Nikkor and came with
an extrension tube. I still use it today.

Click to expand...

I bought a 55 f2.8 around 1985 and I had to buy my tubes separately
(and I still use them today too). That's a good lens.

Click to expand...

Apparently, according to my collegue who used both f/3.5 and f/2.8 versions on a Forox 35mm copy camera.... the f/3.5 was the better lens.
--
Regards,
Baz

Should I go with the sigma 70-300 DI APO lens or the Tamron 70-300?

Out of those two choices, I'd go with the Tamron. The image quality is roughly the same but the Tamron has a better price. In fact, if you look for a used Tamron, you can typically find those for less than USD100.

--
John
Pentax K100D/K200D, Panasonic TZ3/LZ8, Oly Stylus
http://www.pbase.com/jglover
WSSA #141

Barrie Davis said:

Leonard Migliore said:

Guidenet wrote:

Click to expand...

snip

Barrie Davis said:

Barrie Davis said:

........ It's a 55 f3.5 Mircro Nikkor and came with
an extrension tube. I still use it today.

Click to expand...

I bought a 55 f2.8 around 1985 and I had to buy my tubes separately
(and I still use them today too). That's a good lens.

Click to expand...

Apparently, according to my collegue who used both f/3.5 and f/2.8
versions on a Forox 35mm copy camera.... the f/3.5 was the better
lens.
--
Regards,
Baz

Click to expand...

I don't really know which is the better. I've always owned a normal range macro lens. I've always loved them. That old 55 f3.5 was my favorite for many years and still finds a home in my bag often enough. The extension tube came with it from Nikon. I'm not sure if it was always sold that way, but mine was. I bought it new.

I can't remember when, but I'd owned a Nikon macro lens prior to that one, bought used. I can't even remember the max aperture on it. I think is was one of the older macros that was measureed in CM rather than mm. I also has a 55 f2.8 but gave it to my father back in 1980 something. It was an AIS lens so maybe a little later. He loved it and used it as his normal lens on a Nikomat. We both has that horrible 43-86 zoom. LOL

Still have mine.



--
Cheers, Craig

balaraform said:

Should I go with the sigma 70-300 DI APO lens or the Tamron 70-300?

Click to expand...

There's very few people who can answer this as not many people will have experience of both. I'd search on Google for reviews of them instead where you may even find a head-to-head.

I've got the Sigma and it's ok for the price. The one negative that I do have is that I find the lens cap comes off all too easily. Yes I can put a filter on the end to protect it, but I shouldn't have to; neither of my 2 Canon lenses have this problem.