How do you choose between macros?

This maybe a very silly question, but maybe some one has some images to demonstrate.

Why would you choose the new 35mm macro versus the DA 50mm or DA 100mm?

I appreciate the angle of view is different, leading to closer focussing. But if all three offer 1:1 magnification, isn't it just the depth of focus which makes the tangible difference between the three? Or am I missing something obvious?

Peter

Maybe consider not using it as just a macro, but as a 35mm prime or 100mm prime...

a 35mm would also provide more depth because of angles, telephoto lenses give a "flatter" view, and also, do you want to get right up to an object (35mm) or a few inches away (100mm)

Hope my opinion helped

The field of view would be different, so you can use it to include more of the background, and help put the subject in contaxt.

This was with a 24mm lens on extension tubes, but hopefully it will give you the idea...




You would have to be a lot nearer your subject with the 35mm compared to a 100mm, so for instance, I couldn't have used one to get a shot of the dung fly I was photographing earlier today, when using my 105mm.

Dan

Yeah, thats one of the reasons I cant decide what macro lens I want really
But I think im going to go for one around the 100mm range

For documents 50mm
For bugs 100mm
For poisonous bugs 200mm
G

For George, as long as you can get!

Dan

Outch.........,That is real poisonous. What did you think of? This?

Martin.

Nah, not long enough. How about this?

Dan

Daniel,
Wacko Jacko could learn something about ''bad'', from you
Martin.

Well thanks for the answers. I thought that a wider macro would give a greater depth of focus. I really like the toadstools Dan. Including a background like that in macro shots is not something I've seen too often.

Cheers.

Peter

I already own the D-FA 100 Macro and it's fantastic for bug chasing and really shallow depths of field (as well as a great telephoto / portrait lens), however, I'm currently in a state of excitement about the new DA 35 Macro because I want a lens for copy stand work and product shoots that will give me a wider angle and a greater depth of field without having to stop down quite so much - the DA 35 looks like being perfect for this sort of work but I certainly wouldn't sell the 100, they each have their place depending upon the application.

If you're only getting one macro lens then maybe the 50 would be a good compromise - it strikes me as being neither one thing nor t'other though...

Actually George, mischievously brief though his words are, has hit the nail pretty much on the proverbial head.

Personally, I prefer the 100mm for most applications, but the 50mm is ideal for documents as it avoids unnecessarily long working distances.

35mm on digital would in theory be roughly equivalent to a 50mm on film, but for me it's splitting hairs.

Like most things, there has to be a compromise. I have just bought the Sigma 70mm macro, this is one of the first shots I have taken so I am still learning how to get the best out of it.




Taken at F2.8 to see how shallow the depth of field is (very shallow as you can see)

I chose this focal length because:
a) I don't have to be over close at 1:1
b) Excellent reviews about it's sharpness and nice smooth out of focus parts
c) Cost, I got mine for £219

The Sigma 105mm was also considered (at the same cost).

MX veteran that 70 Sigma has been on my wish-list for quite a while but the lowest UK price I have found is around £260.

Would you like to divulge your source at £219 ?

Here you go

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BRAND-NEW-SIGMA-LENS-70mm-F2-8-EX-DG-MACRO_W0QQitemZ260216...