1 last question!!

fallen_mathi

fallen_mathi

Messages
539
Edit My Images
No
hello!:)


Ok, so ive decided after a bit more reserch, and having played around with both cameras, to go with a 40d, im planning on buying a sigma 50mm 1:1 macro lens, to go with this, and have rufly 240 pounds left to purchase another lens, for genral normal photography,

My opinions so far, are either, getting a cannon 50mm 1.4,
or a sigma 30mm 1.4,

Does anyone have any opinions on either of these, or a zoom that will have almost as good quality for the price?

Thanks:)
Nathan
 
fallen_mathi said:
any opinions more than welcome
:)
thanks
Click to expand...

sigma 50 is nice and sharp, the build is a bit dodgy, and at 1-1 you are damn close, almost too close for a ringflash to be effective.
Macro is a bit niche, unless you're absolutely set on it, I'd buy canons 50 and reverse ring it, because I think the proximity will be similar.
If macro is gonna twiddle me knobs, I'll save up for something with a bit more distance.
As for the other lenses....you didn't buy the sigma 50, so....you gots money to burn man:banana:
 
Canon 50/1.4 and Sigma 30/1.4 are both good lenses. Which is better for you depends on what you want to photograph, which you haven't really told us.

But personally I'd find 30mm, let alone 50mm, horribly restrictive and I'd want something wider. Zoom would be good too, but there are no f/1.4 zooms on earth, and even f/2.8 zooms tend to be expensive. You might look at a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 instead of those primes - it's a similar price (<£250). If you don't bother with the Sigma macro you've got ~£400 to spend, but I don't know what you could spend it on. Sigma 24-70 plus 70-300?
 
I think Ajophotog has sent me a sample once and the lens seems to be pretty sharp. One warning, though: with magnification of 0.9 and higher, the DOF is really, really thin.
Hell, when I attach my 500D on the Sigma 70-300 mm I have, in macro mode, I mode a couple of millimeters and the focus is elsewhere (usually on the butt instead of the head is it's insects).
Messiah Khan and a bunch of other guys here have the 30mm F1.4 Sigma and they seem to be happy with it, more or less. I think one of them had some complaints about it being a little soft wide open with CA kicking in there too, but when stopped down, it looked good. There was a thread about the Sigma here, try the search function for that.
 
Thanks all,

In response to what i shoot,
At the moment with my bridge camera, its a mix of macro photography, and a small amount of studio work, (stealling my sisters lighting kit :D), some other general photography added in ofcourse.

Thanks for all adive, any other opinions are welcome, :),
also, where is a good place to purchase a lens?,
Thanks:)
Nathan
 
Nathan,

I'll stick with the macro bit here.....

Almost all macro lenses are up to the mark and the thing that separates them is the focal length/working distance.

The 50mm has quite a small WD at 1:1...only 18cm. This is fine for many thing but it will make it diffiucult for nervous creatures. A 90/100/105mm lens will give you around 33cm WD....more than 50% increase and that can be a godsend in some circumstances.
The Sigma 105, Canon 100 or Tokina 90 probably represent the better option if you're only to have one macro lens. If you want to expand later on then you can decide to go shorter or longer as the need arises.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top