Ron, I have the Canon 100 mm macro; it’s very good, but also very heavy. John Burnett has the Tamron 90 mm lens which, in his hands, takes extremely sharp pictures. Lots of choices out there!
Chuck
I bought a new camera this week, Canon EOS 10D. My lens off my Canon 35 mm, 35 to 70 mm fits good. But I’m looking at buying a 100 mm macro lens and a 100 to 400 mm telephoto lens. I’ve looked at both Canon and Sigma and there is quite a difference in prices for the same lenses. Has anyone have suggestions as to which lens may or may not be better? I would appreciate any input form anyone on this subject,
Thanks kindly,
Ron
Ron, the Tamron 90mm macro is extremely good value for its money. But are you really sure you need a 100-400 zoomlens? This is the equivalent of 160-640 mm. You will need an extremely healthy back to carry such a heavy tripod around, suitable for a 640mm lens. The only purpose of such a long focal lens IMHO is in bird and wildlife photography.
Leen
The good news about macro lenses is that most manufacturers have hit upon fantastic designs, and these lenses are among the sharpest of any among their lineup. The differences in optical quality between the Canon 100, Tamron 90 and Sigma 105 are relatively small, with some reviews placing the Canon ahead just slightly, while others have lauded the Tamron as the best, and the Sigma owners are all willing to dispute the results with truly excellent photos.
Here’s what Photozone has to say (with US Prices from B&H): Canon EF 2.8 100mm Macro 4.57 (5) = outstanding! ($450)
Tamron AF 2.8 90mm SP Macro 4.49 (5) = excellent ($460)
Sigma AF 2.8 105mm macro EX 4.42 (5) = excellent ($370)
(Note: In most countries outside the US, the Canon lens is much more expensive than the others. In Canada, I paid $300 CAD less for my Tamron compared to the Canon 100).
To put this rating into perspective, your 35-70 zoom would probably be rated at around 2.8 (average).
If you REALLY want something in the 100-400 or 100-300 range, Photozone has the following ratings (with US prices from B&H Photo).
Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX (HSM) 4.18 (3) = very-good ($840) Sigma AF 2.8 120-300mm EX (HSM) 4.05 (3) = very-good ($1900) Canon EF 4.5-5.6 100-400mm USM L IS 3.94 (5) = very-good ($1300)
At the long end, the IS (Image Stabilization) could be quite valuable.
Cheaper solutions exist, but most will be rated at ‘average’ or below.
Hi Leen,
The macro is to be used for closeups of the flowers I grow and the telephoto would be used for as you indicated bird photography. I used to do this with film cameras some 35 to 40 years ago. For the close ups I used bellows on a Zeiss camera which back then was pretty good. The telephoto lens I’ve been looking at of course mounts on a tripod. The lens itself is only about 7 1/2" and weighs in at about 3 lbs.
Ron
Ron,
So my guess was right.
There might be just only one pitfall.
Many people come to the area where I live for bird photography as the border between the sea and the wetlands attracts a lot of birds.
Most of them tell me that autofocus in bird photography with pretty slow telephotolenses often is quite problematic as usually the best shots seem to be made in bad lighting conditions like early in teh morning and late in the evening.
I myself have hardly any experience in this field, just a hearsay. This might be worth considering as manual focussing on digital cameras often isn’t that easy.
Leen
Thought this might be a good topic to toss in a bit of information about focal length multipliers on digital SLRs. The CMOS or CCD chip in most digital SLRs, except for the very high end, is smaller than 35mm film. For this reason there is a multiplication factor in what your lens will actually record. For Nikon and Canon cameras like the Rebel, the D70 or the 10D the factor is 1.5 for Nikon and 1.6 for Canon, but the difference is actually less because Canon rounds up and Nikon rounds down. For the higher end Canon 1DMII it is 1.3.
The name "focal length" multiplier is actually a misnomer because you are not getting any extra magnification. A 100mm lens will not bring objects closer on a DSLR than on a regular film SLR. What you are actually decreasing is the field of view. So the field of view on a DSLR like the 10D will be equivalent to a 160mm lens in this case, but objects will not appear any larger.
Rich
Thank you all for your input.
Ron
