macro lens
- Thread starter sam51
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,403
- Name
- Bruce
- Edit My Images
- No
I recently bought the Sigma 105 from Amazon. Just finding my feet with macro and been a bit busy, but I was just about to post some shots from today I liked
I'm quite enjoying the little things on our planet now and wish I had more time to practice
I think it's a cracking lens, but use manual focus due to a lot of searching, especially in low=ish light
I'm quite enjoying the little things on our planet now and wish I had more time to practice
I think it's a cracking lens, but use manual focus due to a lot of searching, especially in low=ish light
- Messages
- 1,618
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bang for your buck Tamron 90mm!
Have a search, very highly regarded and having owned 1 for a few years I can highly recommend it!
Have a search, very highly regarded and having owned 1 for a few years I can highly recommend it!
GardenersHelper
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,343
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you already have a tele zoom, and are working on a tight budget, you might want to look at an achromat such as the Raynox 150 or Raynox 250.
- Messages
- 3,914
- Name
- Stuart or just Stoo!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Canon 100mm f2.8 non L is a cracking macro lens as is the L version, but if you're on a budget the Tamron 90, the Sigma 105 and the Canon 100 non L are all around the same price. They all give superb IQ and AF speed is of limited use on a macro lens anyway so anyone would be ideal. If you are only planning on shooting inanimate objects then you could go with a shorter length such as a 50mm or 60mm but I wouldn't suggest one of them for insects as you have to get too close for comfort to some of them.