I'm looking at getting a Sigma 50mm DG EX lens for Macro on my Canon 400D. Has anyone used one? or got some sample photos.
Sigma for Macro
- Thread starter aquakiwi
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
Which in your opinion is the better lens?
Hammerhead
Contributor
I have the Sigma 50mm, but it's really underused as the Canon 100mm gets most of the time.
Basically, it does what the Canon 60mm does, just as well, and is cheaper. What's not to like?
Basically, it does what the Canon 60mm does, just as well, and is cheaper. What's not to like?
Dunno, I haven't used the Sigma 50 myself. My friend really likes his.
I wouldn't trade my 60mm so will probably never know.
Toss a coin if money isn't an issue
I don't think you can go wrong with either.
Off Topic: FWIW my 100 sits on the shelf mostly but my regular dive buddy uses his all the time. It's totally personal preference and I think both are important to have in the ol' camera kit eventually.
I wouldn't trade my 60mm so will probably never know.
Toss a coin if money isn't an issue
I don't think you can go wrong with either.Off Topic: FWIW my 100 sits on the shelf mostly but my regular dive buddy uses his all the time. It's totally personal preference and I think both are important to have in the ol' camera kit eventually.
bigfrog23
Guest
i have not used the sigma 50mm macro but i have use several sigma lenses and for the most part they are junk and most have very slow noisy auto focusing. i have a sigma 90mm macro lens and it is not sharp at all though it was only about 100 bucks. i gave up on it and bought the cannon 60mm macro lens and i love it it should have an L on it. this lens is very sharp at f5.6 an smaller. i think that if you are particular about your photos you should stick with canon lenses they are they best and are much sharper than the sigma lenses
bigfrog23:
I have to agree with this. I've had Sigma lenses in the past, they are all gone now but I rarely used them. Frankly, they were not ever worth the reduced price I paid for them.As BigFrog mentions, they are very slow to focus (which can be a real problem underwater) noisy (again, when trying to shoot a fish-- a problem) and not particularly sharp.
Unless something has changed dramatically with Sigma in the last few years I would stick with native Canon lenses. Saving a few bucks for something you regret buying is no bargain.
JT
bureau13
Registered
I don't think you can make that statement across the board (although I only have Canon lenses myself). For macro, I have the EF-S 60mm, which I like a lot (never used it wet though...primarily I use it to take pictures of stuff in my aquarium, which is not quite big enough to so diving in 
) but I think I probably should have gone with the Canon EF 100mm...I could get 1:1 with the same quality from a bit farther away. Ideally, had i the budget for two macros, I think I would choose the 60mm and the Sigma 125mm (or something in that vicinity) from what I've read its a very nice lens.
jds
) but I think I probably should have gone with the Canon EF 100mm...I could get 1:1 with the same quality from a bit farther away. Ideally, had i the budget for two macros, I think I would choose the 60mm and the Sigma 125mm (or something in that vicinity) from what I've read its a very nice lens.jds
Gotta disagree about the anti-Sigma sentiments. I currently use a couple of different ones and love them.
Sigma 17-70 is one of the best options for dslr underwater as it has a pretty nice range, allows extremely close focus and has macro, but not 1:1. It's fast and sharp. Mine doesn't hunt in low light and I do not use an aiming light. It's also fabulous on land.
I just purchased the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 (not for underwater). It is also fast and sharp. I just shot a wedding and the reception was DARK. It did not hunt. It grabbed focus nice and fast. No problems. Same with the Sigma 17-70.
I have seen the Sigma 50 macro, the lens we are actually talking about and should return discussion to, results. They are sharp. My bud has been using his Sigma 50 macro for quite a while now and has not seen any reason to change. He's pretty demanding of his images. His underwater time each year is limited, so if the lens was a hunter or slow, it would be gone in favor of something else. This is a good lens.
Don't be led astray by brand names...every brand has its winners and losers and no brand should be tarred with monikers such as "best" or "worst" etc. There's just too many options in each brand to support such a claim. Keep your eye on the specific lens and don't let superfluous discussions cloud the vision.
Sigma 17-70 is one of the best options for dslr underwater as it has a pretty nice range, allows extremely close focus and has macro, but not 1:1. It's fast and sharp. Mine doesn't hunt in low light and I do not use an aiming light. It's also fabulous on land.
I just purchased the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 (not for underwater). It is also fast and sharp. I just shot a wedding and the reception was DARK. It did not hunt. It grabbed focus nice and fast. No problems. Same with the Sigma 17-70.
I have seen the Sigma 50 macro, the lens we are actually talking about and should return discussion to, results. They are sharp. My bud has been using his Sigma 50 macro for quite a while now and has not seen any reason to change. He's pretty demanding of his images. His underwater time each year is limited, so if the lens was a hunter or slow, it would be gone in favor of something else. This is a good lens.
Don't be led astray by brand names...every brand has its winners and losers and no brand should be tarred with monikers such as "best" or "worst" etc. There's just too many options in each brand to support such a claim. Keep your eye on the specific lens and don't let superfluous discussions cloud the vision.
bigfrog23
Guest
ok sigma and some of the other lens maker make good lenses. like sigma's 15mm fish eye lens which is said to have less distortion than the one that canon produces.
but there are 2 main draw back to the sigma 50mm Macro lens and that is that the lens changes in length as it focuses which can make it a pain to work with. Also the other disadvantage to this lens is that if you have auto focus turned on you can not focus the lens manually it must be set to manual focus to focus manually.
Vs. the 60mm macro lens which does not change its length even when you focus to 1:1. and you can manually focus the lens even when auto focus is activated. i think that these to thing are worth the extra 50-100 hundred dollars for the canon lens and that is the one that i went with got mine on ebay for around 32o bucks new.
but there are 2 main draw back to the sigma 50mm Macro lens and that is that the lens changes in length as it focuses which can make it a pain to work with. Also the other disadvantage to this lens is that if you have auto focus turned on you can not focus the lens manually it must be set to manual focus to focus manually.
Vs. the 60mm macro lens which does not change its length even when you focus to 1:1. and you can manually focus the lens even when auto focus is activated. i think that these to thing are worth the extra 50-100 hundred dollars for the canon lens and that is the one that i went with got mine on ebay for around 32o bucks new.
Similar threads
