Cleaning up + closing a gap: Tele/macro lens advice needed

Sorry in advance for another long post...

I recently sold the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art because I found its FL too close to my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art and its max. magnification figure of ~1:8 too limiting. Apart from that I really enjoyed it. Technically it is the best lens I ever used.

But while I'm only an occasional macro shooter I often find myself in the 1:6 to 1:3 magnification range.
I have a 1100€ ($1245) credit at a store from a return, which has no expiration date. But since patience isn't one of my vertues, I'm thinking about what I could/should do with that credit. If I spend it, it'd be on a lens that offers at least as much subject isolation than the now sold 85/1.4 and is longer while still being useable in dimmer conditions. Should have AF, too.
I also have a Sigma 105/2.8 non-OS non-HSM Macro from my Pentax days which is optically sufficient for my needs but which isn't fun to use as the focusing ring has too little travel and near to no resistance. Besides, I only use it for macro work. So I'd like to get rid of it.

My best idea so far:
use my credit and thus spend way too much on the Sigma 135/1.8 Art. But since it "only" goes to 1:4.6, it can't replace a macro lens. (Data sheet says 1:5, but it goes closer. Source: https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-review/)
Using extension tubes doesn't solve that problem; the biggest achievable magnification is 1:2.9 with 16mm of extension. A good figure, but still not enough to replace a macro lens. Stacking the 10mm and 16mm tubes would give 1:2.2 but the IQ drop would be too much for me.
The alternative would be to get an +5 achromatic close-up lens which results in almost 1:1 magnification and hence would allow me to sell the Sigma 105/2.8 Macro. As an advantage I could also use it on the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. But there's a catch (actually, it's three).

Marumi DHG +5 Achromat (or other)
+ cheapest solution
+ works for every lens
+ possibly allows me to get rid of the Sigma 105/2.8
- magnification isn't stepless like with a macro lens
- edge performance suffers
- maximum size is 77mm --> most likely vignettes on Sigma 135/1.8

I've owned the Marumi before and used it in conjunction with a Voigtländer 40/1.2 E-mount and tested it one the Sigma 105/2.8 but returned it because I found the edges unaccepteable. The IQ degredation was/is much stronger than with a simple extension tube - although internet reviews state the opposite.

Proof:


Voigtländer 40mm f/1.2 @ f/5.6, 10mm extension


Voigtländer 40mm f/1.2 @ f/5.6, Marumi DHG +5. Distortion caused by the close-up lens.

It might be that the close-up lens works better on the 135/1.8 (and Tamron 70-200) since it has less field curvature and way better resolution to begin with.

The only alternatives to the 135/1.8 and a close-up lens I could think of are these:

Voigtländer 110mm f/2.5
+ one of the bestest lenses there is right now
- not much more subject isolation than 50/1.4 lens
- very expensive for an occasional macro shooter
- minimal benefit over existing lenses in terms of f-stop --> low light use limited
- no AF

Sigma 150mm f/2.8 HSM Macro
+ pretty "cheap"
o more subject isolation than 50/1.4 but less than 85/1.4
- no sharper than Tamron 70-200 or Sigma 105/2.8 at infinity
- doesn't help me spend my credit
- if I get the Sigma 135/1.8 additionally I'll have 3 lenses covering that FL
- no benefit over existing lenses in terms of f-stop --> low light use limited
- too big to just put in the bag

Proofs for my sharpness claim (stolen from https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/ and put together with the mghty MS Paint):


Tamron 70-200 @ 135mm f/2.8 vs Sigma 150mm @ f/2.8


Sigma 135mm @ f/1.8 vs Sigma 150mm @ f/2.8



Canon FD 400mm f/4 (L)
+ same subject isolation as 135/1.8
+ pretty "cheap"
+ no overlap with existing lenses
- max. magnification 1:9 - extension tubes pretty much without effect, can't take front filters
- useless in low light
- no AF
- I don't see myself using it much
- doesn't help me spend my credit
- can't replace a macro lens



My questions now are:
1. Is there a 82mm close-up lens?
2. If not: does a 77mm close-up lens vignette on the 135/1.8?
3. Has anyone coupled the Sigma 135/1.8 with a close-up lens and got results comparable to a real macro lens?
4. Is there an option I didn't think of like simply waiting for future releases or keeping the 105/2.8?

I'd get the Sony FE 100 F2.8 STF GM OSS instead of messing with what you are planning. This is a lens designed for closeups. Extreme shallow depth-of-field is not that useful.

A 135 F1.8 is worse in low light than an F1.4.

How would that help me? Of course f/1.8 is worse for low light than f/1.4. But it's still 1 1/3 stops brighter than the Sony FE 100 F2.8. A native maginfication of 1:4 vs 1:4.6 isn't worth that much loss of light.

If I settled with f/2.8, I could just get the Sigma 150/2.8 macro.

As pointed out, for closeups you generally aren't using the real fast f stops as you need more DOF than they provide, so your 1.8 to 1.4 comparisons aren't really consideration in this. The 100 macro 2.8 is no issue if this is your intended use, and you won't get a sharper lens.

If you want a versatile lens with 1:3 for closeups but don't need true macro, the 70-300l FE will give that and a decent telephoto range in a relative light package.

Was I so unclear?
No, my main use would be general stuff like nature with magnifications up to 1:3 and some potraiture, which the 135/1.8 + some extension would deliver.
If, however, I want up to 1:1, I'd put on the close-up lens. Then I'd obviously stop down to at least f/2.8 (to make up for the IQ degredation for once).
But as I said I only do real macro stuff seldomly, so high lens speed and thus bigger subject isolation are my priorities. And since I only do them seldomly, I'd want to lose the 105/2.8 Macro that i don't use for anything else.
All I want to know is whether there is a bigger than 77mm close-up lens, if it vignettes if there isn't and if such a setup could replace a real macro lens.

Go to Dyxum.com and on it go to E mount. Go to the range of focal length you are looking for and compare. You get both rating as well as information about the lenses. Look at the Magnification ratio. You probably want something around 1:3 for things like flower photography.

Th 24-105 and 70-300 both give this kind of ability with quite different lens ranges but around the same price. If you want something to also serve as a nice telephoto the 70-300 is a nice relative compact choice. The 24-105 is more of a general purpose lens which many reports and users place very close to prime lenses in quality.

You can go to a mail order sit such as Adorama.com and get specs on most lenses with minimal searching. Even if it doesn't ship to your country it is a good information source.

Egg Salad said:

4. Is there an option I didn't think of like simply waiting for future releases or keeping the 105/2.8?

Click to expand...

Hello Egg,

Here is an option you probably didn't think of!

Why not pick up a FE 2.8/50 Macro and keep it in the bag for when you want closeup/macro. Then you can get your longer lens for other uses.




Under $500. Light and small. Focus limiting switch. Focus Hold Button, configurable.



Having used achromats in the past, when I switched to Sony I decided to go with a macro lens and was much happier to not have to deal with potential image degradation, vignetting, etc.

I just returned from a trip to the Southern Sierras, California, for early Spring flora opportunities and used the lens extensively.


The focus ring has a long throw which provides wonderful fine tuning of focus.



(it's also a wonderful 50mm "normal" lens)

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

Since you note that you only shoot macro occasionally, for me it would get down to how to fill out the lens portfolio. I'm in the same boat - do a lot of hiking and frequently find things I want to shoot close up, but not so often that I want a macro lens. So, as noted above, I often use my 70-300. Perfect? No. But a decent compromise for me. Couple shots:







Good luck with your choice.

dkeller said:

Go to Dyxum.com and on it go to E mount. Go to the range of focal length you are looking for and compare. You get both rating as well as information about the lenses. Look at the Magnification ratio. You probably want something around 1:3 for things like flower photography.

Th 24-105 and 70-300 both give this kind of ability with quite different lens ranges but around the same price. If you want something to also serve as a nice telephoto the 70-300 is a nice relative compact choice. The 24-105 is more of a general purpose lens which many reports and users place very close to prime lenses in quality.

You can go to a mail order sit such as Adorama.com and get specs on most lenses with minimal searching. Even if it doesn't ship to your country it is a good information source.

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me of this site, but there is no lens I didn't already know and little to no ratings.
I already have the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, so what would a 70-300 or 24-105 - both slower - give me?

richj20 said:

Egg Salad said:

4. Is there an option I didn't think of like simply waiting for future releases or keeping the 105/2.8?

Click to expand...

Hello Egg,

Here is an option you probably didn't think of!

Why not pick up a FE 2.8/50 Macro and keep it in the bag for when you want closeup/macro. Then you can get your longer lens for other uses.

Having used achromats in the past, when I switched to Sony I decided to go with a macro lens and was much happier to not have to deal with potential image degradation, vignetting, etc.

I just returned from a trip to the Southern Sierras, California, for early Spring flora opportunities and used the lens extensively.

Click to expand...

Why not the FE 2.8/50 Macro: because I already have the Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2 ZE and because f/2.8 is too slow and subject distance with 50mm too short for some things.

What you wrote about close-up lenses is not what I wanted to read but what I think myself. I'm just hoping rsults with an outstandiing lens would be better.

Hank Radt said:

Since you note that you only shoot macro occasionally, for me it would get down to how to fill out the lens portfolio. I'm in the same boat - do a lot of hiking and frequently find things I want to shoot close up, but not so often that I want a macro lens. So, as noted above, I often use my 70-300. Perfect? No. But a decent compromise for me.

Good luck with your choice.

Click to expand...

I now added a gear list to make things easier. As written before, I already have the Tamron 70-200. A 70-300 would be a step down. Besides, this is about me wanting a faster lens.

I guess it depends on what you want for closeup work you don't need, in fact wouldn't want to use those that 2.8 anyway, so I wouldn't consider that even an issue. For me the comparisons below would be more important of I was out shooting flowers or hiking. 70-300 closer focus with more magnification and nearly half the weight to lug around.

What you want is up to you--just my own opinion of what I would advise. If you want more sharpness get the Sony Macro. Which ever focal length you get would be lighter and sharper for those closeups. I like the 90 or 100 range, but have had a lot of nice flower shots with the 50mm, It's only weakness is focus distance if you are shooting bugs on the flowers.

70-200 GM 70-300

2600 USD 1150 USD

Close focus

96cm 90 cm

Magnification

.25 .31

Mass

1480 gm 854 gm

I'm leaving the post but apologize, I responded assuming the Sony GM and I see you have the Tamron, presumably with appropriate converter as I don't think it is available in E mount. thus my comments on mass and price don't apply as it and the 70-300 are close. You did mention "macro" use though and not the difference in close focus distance of the Tammy is nearly the same as the GM, while the 70-300 focuses closer and has more magnification due to the 300 mm. You appear hung up on lens speed, which should be an issue for macro anyway, otherwise I don't see the 70-300 as a step down at all. Of course I prefer the longer focal length for other reasons.

I really can't resist asking why you are asking for advice here as it appears you have your mind made up already and reject suggestions given. What do you want that the Tamron isn't giving you now as you seem very pleased with it?

As it turns out I didn't do my research before posting.
Using the Marumi DHG +5 on the Sigma 135/1.8, I'd end up between 1:1.6 at infinity focus and 1:0.97 at MFD. That's simply unuseable.
See: http://extreme-macro.co.uk/extreme-macro-closeup-lenses/#calculator

So scrap the whole close-up lens part. Doesn't work. There is no way around a dedicated macro lens. All I could do is spend even more money an another macro lens for better useability and mayby slightly better performance, but seeing how much my macro lens lens spends in my cabinet, that wouldn't make sense, either.

So it boils down to the question whether or not the Sigma 135/1.8 would be the right choice for me - which only I can answer. To my knowledge there aren't many lenses that fit the criteria of longer than 85mm, not much slower than f/1.4 while offering good baseline magnification and ideally AF.

Thanks for taking your time to respond to an ill-conceived thread.

Egg Salad said:

Sorry in advance for another long post...

I recently sold the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art because I found its FL too close to my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art and its max. magnification figure of ~1:8 too limiting. Apart from that I really enjoyed it. Technically it is the best lens I ever used.

But while I'm only an occasional macro shooter I often find myself in the 1:6 to 1:3 magnification range.
I have a 1100€ ($1245) credit at a store from a return, which has no expiration date. But since patience isn't one of my vertues, I'm thinking about what I could/should do with that credit. If I spend it, it'd be on a lens that offers at least as much subject isolation than the now sold 85/1.4 and is longer while still being useable in dimmer conditions. Should have AF, too.
I also have a Sigma 105/2.8 non-OS non-HSM Macro from my Pentax days which is optically sufficient for my needs but which isn't fun to use as the focusing ring has too little travel and near to no resistance. Besides, I only use it for macro work. So I'd like to get rid of it.

My best idea so far:
use my credit and thus spend way too much on the Sigma 135/1.8 Art. But since it "only" goes to 1:4.6, it can't replace a macro lens. (Data sheet says 1:5, but it goes closer. Source: https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-review/)
Using extension tubes doesn't solve that problem; the biggest achievable magnification is 1:2.9 with 16mm of extension. A good figure, but still not enough to replace a macro lens. Stacking the 10mm and 16mm tubes would give 1:2.2 but the IQ drop would be too much for me.
The alternative would be to get an +5 achromatic close-up lens which results in almost 1:1 magnification and hence would allow me to sell the Sigma 105/2.8 Macro. As an advantage I could also use it on the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. But there's a catch (actually, it's three).

Marumi DHG +5 Achromat (or other)
+ cheapest solution
+ works for every lens
+ possibly allows me to get rid of the Sigma 105/2.8
- magnification isn't stepless like with a macro lens
- edge performance suffers
- maximum size is 77mm --> most likely vignettes on Sigma 135/1.8

I've owned the Marumi before and used it in conjunction with a Voigtländer 40/1.2 E-mount and tested it one the Sigma 105/2.8 but returned it because I found the edges unaccepteable. The IQ degredation was/is much stronger than with a simple extension tube - although internet reviews state the opposite.

Proof:


Voigtländer 40mm f/1.2 @ f/5.6, 10mm extension


Voigtländer 40mm f/1.2 @ f/5.6, Marumi DHG +5. Distortion caused by the close-up lens.

It might be that the close-up lens works better on the 135/1.8 (and Tamron 70-200) since it has less field curvature and way better resolution to begin with.

The only alternatives to the 135/1.8 and a close-up lens I could think of are these:

Voigtländer 110mm f/2.5
+ one of the bestest lenses there is right now
- not much more subject isolation than 50/1.4 lens
- very expensive for an occasional macro shooter
- minimal benefit over existing lenses in terms of f-stop --> low light use limited
- no AF

Sigma 150mm f/2.8 HSM Macro
+ pretty "cheap"
o more subject isolation than 50/1.4 but less than 85/1.4
- no sharper than Tamron 70-200 or Sigma 105/2.8 at infinity
- doesn't help me spend my credit
- if I get the Sigma 135/1.8 additionally I'll have 3 lenses covering that FL
- no benefit over existing lenses in terms of f-stop --> low light use limited
- too big to just put in the bag

Proofs for my sharpness claim (stolen from https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/ and put together with the mghty MS Paint):


Tamron 70-200 @ 135mm f/2.8 vs Sigma 150mm @ f/2.8


Sigma 135mm @ f/1.8 vs Sigma 150mm @ f/2.8

Canon FD 400mm f/4 (L)
+ same subject isolation as 135/1.8
+ pretty "cheap"
+ no overlap with existing lenses
- max. magnification 1:9 - extension tubes pretty much without effect, can't take front filters
- useless in low light
- no AF
- I don't see myself using it much
- doesn't help me spend my credit
- can't replace a macro lens

My questions now are:
1. Is there a 82mm close-up lens?
2. If not: does a 77mm close-up lens vignette on the 135/1.8?
3. Has anyone coupled the Sigma 135/1.8 with a close-up lens and got results comparable to a real macro lens?
4. Is there an option I didn't think of like simply waiting for future releases or keeping the 105/2.8?

Click to expand...

Bravo for your experimenting with the ideal lens collection.

I use my recent purchase of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 a lot and really like its close focusing. Wanted a lens to complement it with a bit of tele to it and finally have settled for the Canon 135 f2. The Canon 135 is a very well behaved lens and focuses quickly in reasonable light - had a long reputation for that - sharp and great bokeh. About 3 feet for min focus distance, but that isn't why i bought it for. It sure beats the almost 2 grand for the new FE 135.

--
Phil B

I prefer overthinking to overspending. And still, I managed to buy several lenses that I should have known before make no sense for me. Like the aforementioned Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2. But I cling to it for its build. It's a pleasure to use.

I'll most likely strike a balance between the decently priced Canon 135/2 and the newly announced Sony 135/1.8 GM and settle for the Sigma 135/1.8. At 1200€ it's still pricey but accepteable. I'd love the Sony's higher magnification but 700€ on top isn't worth it for me.

As for my general goal to free myself of a seldomly used macro lens: tough luck I guess.

Egg Salad said:

I prefer overthinking to overspending. And still, I managed to buy several lenses that I should have known before make no sense for me. Like the aforementioned Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2. But I cling to it for its build. It's a pleasure to use.
I'll most likely strike a balance between the decently priced Canon 135/2 and the newly announced Sony 135/1.8 GM and settle for the Sigma 135/1.8. At 1200€ it's still pricey but accepteable. I'd love the Sony's higher magnification but 700€ on top isn't worth it for me.

As for my general goal to free myself of a seldomly used macro lens: tough luck I guess.

Click to expand...

Well, its the school of hard knocks - that is, i think one has to buy some lenses and try them before finding out what one really wants. I'm really thankful that Sony's "open lens mount" (sort of) allows one to try so many lenses at relatively low cost.

I can see the Sigma 135/1.8, not the high cost of Sony's. My next buy, at some point is to upgrade my body to the 3rd generation, but not at any rush at the moment.

In my case it is or was the combination of poor self control paired with frustration over the fact that the lens I want doesn't exist, so that I bought something that I knew wasn't fully it. Yet I'm not sure if I should sell the Zeiss again...

But yes, I also very much enjoy the adapt-aynthing-orgy.

I had the Sigma 85/1.4 Art before but found it too close to 50mm and its MFD too limiting. Technically, it's the best lens I ever had.

I apologize if I sounded a bit snarky on my last post. While the way we look at what we want in a lens appears quite different, I appreciate your research and sharing it. I guess the differences of wants and needs is what drives the entire photo industry. Good luck with your choice.

You apologize too much. This is the Internet, I like my online conversations straight to the point and somewhat rough (and censorship of certain words annoys me).
I actually had the Sigma in mind before starting this thread but was hoping there was something that satisfies both purposes - maximum subject isolation + speed and macro work. But as expected there isn't.

Generally speaking, I want a lot but need very little, but this is the only real hobby I have, so I might as well put all my money in it.

Quoted myself from another thread.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4383760#forum-post-62588574

Member said:

I got the Sigma a few days ago. To answer my own question: no, it's not a macro lens substitute. The results with the Marumi are surprisingly and disappointingly bad. They are worse than with the Tamron 70-200 and clearly worse than with the Sigma 50/1.4. And I don't really know why. The 135/1.8 is the best lens I ever used but doesn't give good results with either Marumi or extension tubes.

The Marumi was set to minimum, the extension tube solution to maximum magnification. f/2 with the Marumi is simply unuseable. Very hazy. It gets ok at f/4 and further improves from there but never gets as good as all the other lenses I tested.


f/3.5, 1:2,5, Marumi +3


f/3.5, 1:2.8, 16mm extension

The red spot must be internal reflections from the hologram.

Very disappointing. I can forget about finally selling my adapted macro lens.

Click to expand...