Macro - Sigma 150 or Canon 100 ?

68lbs

68lbs

Messages
5,450
Name
April 2008
Edit My Images
No
...or save a bit and get the Sigma 105?

From what I've read, all are good. But which would you (should I) choose?
 
68lbs said:
...or save a bit and get the Sigma 105?

From what I've read, all are good. But which would you (should I) choose?
Click to expand...

It really depends what you're going to shoot. The longer FL macro's are better for apprentice geriatrics like myself who can bend or kneel too easily.

Bob
 
As Bob says, it depends on what your shooting. Flowers?.. Get a shorter focal length lens in the 60-105mm range. Insects?.. Get a longer focal lngth lens such as the Sigma 150mm (Which is the one I use and love.) :)
 
I don't really know what I'd be shooting.

At the mo I just feel I'd like to be able to focus closer at times (flowers, still life). I can't see me sitting for hours waiting for a fly to blink, but who knows, once I get in close I might find a liking for it.

So, something to get me started is what I'm after, but I don't like spending money only to want to upgrade relatively quickly.

Maybe the question should be Canon 100 or Sigma 105 ??
 
If it's just for a 'taster' then maybe a set of extension tubes for your current lens/lenses would give you what you need.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
maybe a set of extension tubes for your current lens/lenses would give you what you need.
Click to expand...

Been looking at these and whilst they're cheaper than a lens, I'm not convinced they're worth the money. The main gripe for me seems to be loss of light and the affects on the focus. I'm thinking if I was out for a walk I would have to keep taking them on/off depending on whether I was wanting to do a nice flower closeup or more general landscape.

With a 100mm (approx) I could use it for different types of shot without having to change the lens.

Is this right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top