Sigma 70mm , F2.8, EX DG MACRO


MX veteran

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 16:20
Does anyone have any opinions/experience of this lens? I have read a good review on it and can get one for 219 from a UK supplier.
K100D Super, 18-55, 50-200, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 70mm macro and lots of old lenses

George Lazarette

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 20:20
MX veteran wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions/experience of this lens? I have read a good review on it and can get one for 219 from a UK supplier.

I don't know the lens, but I wouldn't spend much money on any macro with a focal length of less than 90/100mm if my purpose was to shoot bugs and stuff.

The longer lenses allow you to give the animal a bit of space. With a 50mm or 70mm you're liable to have the bug crawling over the front element.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Malo1961

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 21:05
I don't understand that statement,George. In the pre-digital days the 105 mm was considdered ideal for macro of little bugs and other creepy stuff. 50 mm was always considdered good for static things, that didn't move. The only thing Sigma did, was creating a lens that after cropfactor becomes a 105 mm again. Of course an 100mm now gives you a bit more space( 150mm digital) but it can also limit you in small spaces. I personally think it is a good choice from the sigma boys.
Martin.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 21:18
Malo1961 wrote:
I don't understand that statement,George. In the pre-digital days the 105 mm was considdered ideal for macro of little bugs and other creepy stuff. 50 mm was always considdered good for static things, that didn't move. The only thing Sigma did, was creating a lens that after cropfactor becomes a 105 mm again. Of course an 100mm now gives you a bit more space( 150mm digital) but it can also limit you in small spaces. I personally think it is a good choice from the sigma boys.
Martin.

Actually, I think 200mm was considered ideal - and still is - but 200mm macro lenses have always been hugely expensive.

I never used a macro on film, but I know that I would have considered 100mm to be rather short.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Malo1961

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 21:28
George Lazarette wrote:
Malo1961 wrote:
I don't understand that statement,George. In the pre-digital days the 105 mm was considdered ideal for macro of little bugs and other creepy stuff. 50 mm was always considdered good for static things, that didn't move. The only thing Sigma did, was creating a lens that after cropfactor becomes a 105 mm again. Of course an 100mm now gives you a bit more space( 150mm digital) but it can also limit you in small spaces. I personally think it is a good choice from the sigma boys.
Martin.

Actually, I think 200mm was considered ideal - and still is - but 200mm macro lenses have always been hugely expensive.

I never used a macro on film, but I know that I would have considered 100mm to be rather short.

G

I know what you are saying. And Pentax is famous for their 200 mm. Nikon has a fabulous one in that region also. Still......why would it be that the majority of macro lenses sold and made in the pre-digital age was on the 105 mark? Other than stating the obvious reason( price), could it be that the 105 is the best compromise pricewise, 1:1 ratio and working space? Not to make an issue out of it. I would love to own a 200 mm macro. But just wondering
Martin.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

johnriley

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 21:44
It will depend on the sort of macro work you want to do.

If I were copying documents I might want a 50mm. But for most other applications a 100mm would be better. I'm not sure about the 200mm having never used one but I would expect it would be excellent for small animals/birds/flowers/bugs.
Best regards, John

George Lazarette

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 21:44
Malo1961 wrote:
George Lazarette wrote:
Quote:
I don't understand that statement,George. In the pre-digital days the 105 mm was considdered ideal for macro of little bugs and other creepy stuff. 50 mm was always considdered good for static things, that didn't move. The only thing Sigma did, was creating a lens that after cropfactor becomes a 105 mm again. Of course an 100mm now gives you a bit more space( 150mm digital) but it can also limit you in small spaces. I personally think it is a good choice from the sigma boys.
Martin.

Actually, I think 200mm was considered ideal - and still is - but 200mm macro lenses have always been hugely expensive.

I never used a macro on film, but I know that I would have considered 100mm to be rather short.

G

I know what you are saying. And Pentax is famous for their 200 mm. Nikon has a fabulous one in that region also. Still......why would it be that the majority of macro lenses sold and made in the pre-digital age was on the 105 mark? Other than stating the obvious reason( price), could it be that the 105 is the best compromise pricewise, 1:1 ratio and working space? Not to make an issue out of it. I would love to own a 200 mm macro. But just wondering
Martin.

I think cost and convenience play a very large part in this. The Pentax 200mm macro sold for about 1,200, so that ruled it out for most people. Furthermore, 200mm is pretty long. You can't shoot portraits, for instance, at 200mm, which restricts the lens's usefulness.

If cost were no object, I would have both the FA 100m and the FA 200mm, but in the real world, I just have the 100mm.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

johnriley

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 21:45
We have a FA 100mm and it is an exceptional lens.
Best regards, John

MX veteran

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 22:00
Sigma state that the minimum focusing distance is 25cm. Surely that's OK.
Using a 135mm with 65mm worth of ext. tubes I can focus down to about 36cm which leaves more than enough room to be comfortable. What about the Sigma 105mm macro as an alternative (or anything else for that matter) ?
K100D Super, 18-55, 50-200, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 70mm macro and lots of old lenses

Malo1961

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 22:09
MX veteran wrote:
Sigma state that the minimum focusing distance is 25cm. Surely that's OK.
Using a 135mm with 65mm worth of ext. tubes I can focus down to about 36cm which leaves more than enough room to be comfortable. What about the Sigma 105mm macro as an alternative (or anything else for that matter) ?

Well....,personally i think the 100mm mark is the best compromise (150 mm digital crop) Working space, distance and pricewise.
Still have to get one myself. Now I only have the old SMC A 2.8/50mm. Heck of a lens though And manual focus doesn't bother me with macro.
Martin.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 22:10
MX veteran wrote:
Sigma state that the minimum focusing distance is 25cm. Surely that's OK.
Using a 135mm with 65mm worth of ext. tubes I can focus down to about 36cm which leaves more than enough room to be comfortable. What about the Sigma 105mm macro as an alternative (or anything else for that matter) ?

On a Pentax K-mount DSLR, my (affordable) choices would be:

1 SMCP-FA 100mm (or the F or A versions)
2 Tamron 90mm (any)
3 Old Vivitar S1 105mm
4 Almost anything else. All macros are pretty good.

The only reason to have AF on a macro lens, in my view, is so that you can use it for normal (non-macro) work. If you plan to do a lot of macro work, I would give few points for AF.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

MX veteran

Link Posted 25/02/2008 - 22:51
Thanks everyone, I am not considering AF as a buying point, I have found for most critical stuff I turn it off anyway. Your replies here and other comments elsewhere about there being no bad macro lenses has eased my minds so I have bought the 70mm. When the bugs arrive on the scene in spring I will (might) show you the results.

Thanks again.
K100D Super, 18-55, 50-200, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 70mm macro and lots of old lenses

mer

Link Posted 05/03/2008 - 01:39
the 70mm is one of the best lenses ever made ! Very sharp . You can also check www.photozone.de there is a review there

Clarky

Link Posted 05/03/2008 - 03:09
George Lazarette wrote:
MX veteran wrote:
Sigma state that the minimum focusing distance is 25cm. Surely that's OK.
Using a 135mm with 65mm worth of ext. tubes I can focus down to about 36cm which leaves more than enough room to be comfortable. What about the Sigma 105mm macro as an alternative (or anything else for that matter) ?

On a Pentax K-mount DSLR, my (affordable) choices would be:

1 SMCP-FA 100mm (or the F or A versions)
2 Tamron 90mm (any)
3 Old Vivitar S1 105mm
4 Almost anything else. All macros are pretty good.

The only reason to have AF on a macro lens, in my view, is so that you can use it for normal (non-macro) work. If you plan to do a lot of macro work, I would give few points for AF.

G

I have the Pentax D-FA and a 90mm Tamron And in my opinion there isn't much between them optically and build wise, they are both superb, Maybe the Pentax slightly ahead due to its 1.1 magnification.

I have found myself using the AF more and more of late, more so with the Pentax as its not as noisy as the Tamron, i find i can get the focus to lock on better than i can when doing it manually (must be my old peepers ).

I have never used a 50mm macro but i believe it would be a little more difficult with my style of Macro, getting in so close to the subject.

I would love to get my hands on a 200mm though but not at the Prices they are asking
The Sigma 180mm looks good and i may be swayed in that direction if the price is right.
Camera:|K-7|
Pentax Lenses:|DA12-24/f4 ED AL|DA35Ltd Macro|FA31Ltd|FA77Ltd|FA50/1.4|F70-210|FA20-35 f4/AL|A*200/f4 Macro ED|A50/1.7|A50 Macro f2.8|1.7xAF adapter|
Voigtlander|125/f2.5SL Macro APO Lanthar|
Sigma Lenses:|EX DG 100-300 f4|2X & 1.4X TC|
Flashes:|AF540FGZx2|RingFlash AF160FC|

distudio

Link Posted 06/03/2008 - 00:51
johnriley wrote:
It will depend on the sort of macro work you want to do.

If I were copying documents I might want a 50mm. But for most other applications a 100mm would be better. I'm not sure about the 200mm having never used one but I would expect it would be excellent for small animals/birds/flowers/bugs.

I'm quite late to this thread though I can add my experiences as I own 50, 125 and 200mm macro lenses. The macro lens Fl that I use the most is 50mm, anything longer and I have to get too far back from my light table, it can make shooting larger objects from high angles a real pain (like copy work).

I use the 125mm out of doors generally for shooting creatures, textures and objects, I can just get away with hand holding it without flash but 50mm is better. I use my 200mm when working distance is crucial though it's not very often, it gets maybe 5% of my macro work, hardly cost effective but handy. The 200mm really needs to be accompanied by a good macro flash system or a good tripod, it's for the deliberate stuff where time and convenience aren't paramount.

What I think will be quite handy is the coming 35mm macro, save me putting tubes behind my 31LTD The 70mm does look like a fabulous lens though, maybe....

Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.