Another macro lens question - best multipurpose for cropped sensor Canon

[Max von MeiselMaus]

I thought I had it all sorted and, now that I have the money to buy it, doubts are cropping up, so help me out here.

I want a macro lens for small scale still life. Minimum size of subject is likely to be about 10mm. Being a cheapskate, it would also be nice to double this up as a portrait lens. However, this is not as important.

I have been using extension tubes with 50mm lenses (either my Canon nifty fifty or my Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC, neither of which is ideal). I have become frustrated with how close I need to get, which makes light placement difficult. I would also like the additional DoF from taking a step or two back.

I have been looking at the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG, which has excellent IQ and would give me an effective 105mm on my cropped sensor, which seems plenty. However, that is only 20mm away from what I already have and I get momentary doubts whether this will be enough. Then I look at the Sigma 105mm EX DG OS HSM, which would give me an effective 170mm ish, which seems excessive, particularly if I am ever going to use it as a portrait lens.

And then there is the price. I have found the 70mm used for about £180, which is great. The 105mm used starts at £315, which is a huge hike in price. There appears to be an earlier model of 105mm, which is roughly the same price as the 70mm. However, this is without the IS and there appear to be autofocus problems with it, so no go on that one.

I am likely to upgrade my camera to a full frame at some point. However, I am buying for this camera and am prepared to sell any lenses that don't do the job if and when I do my camera swap.

So, as you can see, I am tying myself into a knot with all this over-thinking. Any further thoughts might make it all so much more difficult, or might very much help. You don't know until you try!

Thanks in advance.

[DanK]

There have been numerous threads about this recently, including one long one that is currently only 4 places down from your own, so I suggest you do a quick search of the site, read a few of the threads to narrow down your question, and then repost. I don't mean to put you off--macro is what I do, and I would be happy to advise--but it is inefficient to ask folks to type the same things.

You haven't said what you will be photographing--you listed the size, but not what it is--which makes advising you difficult. The best choice for static objects is not necessarily the best for bugs. This is one of the issues that has been chewed over a lot in previous threads. So please be more specific when you repost, to help us give you better advice.

I'll comment now on one part of your post:

I have been looking at the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG, which has excellent IQ and would give me an effective 105mm on my cropped sensor, which seems plenty.

The "effective 105 mm" is ambiguous in the case of macro at or near minimum working distance (MWD). You need to consider several different things:

1. MWD for any macro lens is exactly the same regardless of sensor size.

2. Likewise, maximum magnification is independent of sensor size. Almost all dedicated macro lenses are 1:1 magnification at MWD, so a 10 mm object will cast a 10mm image on any sensor.

3. The advantage of longer macro lenses is greater working distance. The disadvantages are weight, size, cost, and greater difficulty in handholding.

4. A given focal length WILL give you greater reach on a crop--that is, you can be farther away and still fill the frame. For macro work, that is the only sense in which a lens of a given focal length on a crop is equivalent to 1.6 x that focal length on a FF.

By the way, full frame is not advantageous for all macro work. That is in some of the earlier threads as well.

So, my suggestion is to read a bit from old threads and then repost with questions those don't answer, being more specific about the type of macro work you want to do. I and others will be eager to offer suggestions at that point.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Thanks for your input, Dan.

Yes, I have combed the previous threads and I am aware this is a common question. However, given how helpful people are in here, I though there was no harm in asking for any thoughts on my particular situation.

I am not sure what else I can add about what I will be photographing aside from "small scale still life, minimum size 10mm ish". So, no, not insects, which is what most people seem to want macros for and what many of the previous threads are about. This was one of the main reasons for starting yet another macro thread.

And thank you for your information on "effective" focal length. I probably didn't phrase my issues well, if they sounded unclear. I do want to be able to step back, but I don't need to be on the other side of the room. So, the question for me is whether the 70mm will enable me to step back far enough to be able to get me and the camera out of the way of the lights and increase DoF to a workable extent (so, two-three cm rather than 6-7mm, without shrinking the aperture to nothing), or whether going up to 105mm is going to be necessary.

And I have read about the difficulties of full frame with macro. As I don't intend to specialise in macro and have a long time before I can justify thinking about upgrading my camera, I am not that concerned at the moment. I just thought I would sling my thoughts on FF in there, as it is potentially relevant to making this choice.

Thanks again for your input.

[DanK]

Hi Max,

We are on the same page. Asking about your particular situation was exactly what I was suggesting.

The one specific piece of information you just reiterated--still life--is helpful. sorry that I missed that when I wrote my earlier post. Given that, I would strongly recommend that you consider the Canon EF-S 60mm macro. It is an excellent macro lens, particularly for the price. It has USM AF, which is fast and allows full-time manual focusing, which is a plus. On a crop sensor camera, it is a reasonable focal length for portraits, which you mentioned as one of your other interests.

The majority of the flower macros on my site were taken with a crop camera and the EF-S 60mm.

The importance of still subjects is that the minimum working distance of macro lenses is very short and is correlated with focal length. It is even harder to get close to bugs with a 60mm than with a longer lens, and if you want close to 1:1 magnification, you need to near MWD regardless of sensor size.

Canon also offers a much older50mm "compact macro," which I would avoid. That was my first macro lens. It is very sharp, but its maximum magnification is only 1:2 unless you buy a 'life size adapter," which makes it roughly as expensive as the EF-S 60mm.

I hope this helps.

Dan

[PhotomanJohn]

And I have read about the difficulties of full frame with macro.

I am not sure what you have read but there are no "difficulties" in using a full frame camera for macro. The only difference is that you will get more of your subject in the frame for a given magnification with full frame which I don't consider a negative. As has been stated before, the depth of field and working distance for a given magnification is not dependent on sensor size. You still have the option of increasing the distance to the subject to get an increase in depth of field due to the resulting reduction in magnification like a crop sensor forces you to do for larger subjects.

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one needs a full frame camera for macro. I'm just tired of folks talking about the disadvantages (other than size and price) of full frame cameras.

John

[Max von MeiselMaus]

John, I read someone alluding to the fact that FF is not necessarily the best option for macro. As I am not buying an FF camera any time soon and am effectively dabbling in macro, I have not investigated further. At the moment, it is a non-problem for me. If and when it is likely to become an issue, doubtless I shall get stuck in with the debate. For now, I am happy to put all that to one side, but thanks for raising it.

I think I must have staked out sensor size in a confusing way in my initial post. No, I am aware that sensor size, DoF and working distance are not directly related. However, in terms of how close one needs to be to a small object for it to fill the frame, these things have an indirect effect. So, yes, looking at a longer focal length will enable me to step back and, as DoF increases with subject-lens distance, I will get greater DoF. Perhaps I should have pegged it out like that, to avoid confusion.

Dan, I have to confess that I never thought to go shorter than 70mm for this lens. I have a 18-50mm "macro" (in the Sigma sense of a short working distance) and am not sure the 60mm would be different enough. I will look into that one, though. 60mm is certainly a useful portrait length.

[DanK]

I'm just tired of folks talking about the disadvantages (other than size and price) of full frame cameras.

Uh-oh. That sounds like me you are talking about.

I shoot macro with both formats, and I do think a crop is superior for some macro work, but not for what Max is interested in doing. The reason isn't sensor size per se, but rather pixel density. With some exceptions, crops have higher pixel density, often much higher. At MWD, the camera with higher density will put more pixels on the subject, since the size of the image is independent of sensor size. Even my old 50D gets me considerably more pixels than my 5DIII. In doing static work, I don't care; if I need more pixels, I just put on tubes. However, I find the extra extension difficult when I am out hunting bugs. My standard is a 36mm tube for that purpose. More than that I find really difficult. I'm actually thinking about replacing my 50D with a 7D (generation 1) refurb partly because of the greater pixel density of the 7D.

The size and weight that you mention matters to me also. My standard bug-hunting rig has an off-center diffused flash with the edge of the diffuser near the end of the lens. With a 100mm lens and a 36 mm tube, that is a heavy and awkward rig. It's a bit easier with my smaller crop.

This is not a terribly big deal, IMHO, and I would certainly not suggest to someone who has a FF and is starting on macro to buy a second, crop camera. However, I have suggested to a number of people that they shouldn't assume that a FF will help them with macro. The fact that I do almost all of my macro with artificial light, either flash or continuous, enters into this also, because that allows me to keep ISO low and avoids one of the advantages of my FF camera.

Just my opinion.

[PhotomanJohn]

So, yes, looking at a longer focal length will enable me to step back and, as DoF increases with subject-lens distance, I will get greater DoF.

Max - You may still be missing one of the main points. Using a longer lens allows you to step back for the same magnification but doesn't increase the DOF unless you continue to step back even further to reduce the image size on the sensor. The same holds true with the shorter lens.

Dan - I completely agree with what you have said because you fully explained your reasoning. To summarize, you said that because of the lower pixel density of your full frame 5DIII you often prefer one of your crop cameras that have a higher density for macro work. The issue with your 5DIII is its low pixel density not that it is a full frame camera. What bothers me is when folks read something like that and fail to connect all the dots and come away believing that all full frame cameras are inferior for the purpose which is not correct.

My situation is different than yours. I currently have a D7000 crop camera and a D800 full frame (D750 coming next week!!) which both have the same pixel density and identical performance at the pixel level. It doesn't matter which camera I use.

So enough rambling on my part. Just looking for full disclosure.

John

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Max - You may still be missing one of the main points. Using a longer lens allows you to step back for the same magnification but doesn't increase the DOF unless you continue to step back even further to reduce the image size on the sensor. The same holds true with the shorter lens.

John, yes, I was missing that point. My assumption was that the DoF field would be greater for the longer lens, keeping the image size constant. I have run it all through a calculator (as that is the way I understand things) and you are, of course, correct. OK. That removes one of my reasons to go longer. But, hell, I have started the move towards getting a new lens and I will damn well get one!

But thanks for pointing that out. Info duly filed in my bad-addled brains.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Putting this in here in case it is of any use to anyone else.

I am trying to decide between the Sigma 70mm and the Sigma 105mm. I have been looking at focal lengths and which are most likely to give me what I want, in terms of photographing both portraits and relatively small still lives. One way of doing that is to calculate the smallest fields of view for the two lenses and the distance to subject needed to get an 80cm field of view (roughly a half body portrait). It has been a handy way to look at the practicalities of the two lenses.

So, with a minimum focusing distance of 25.7cm, the Sigma 70mm macro has a minimum FoV of 5.5cm, which isn't too shoddy.
With a minimum focusing distance of 31.3cm, the Sigma 105mm macro has a minimum FoV of 4.47cm, which is marginally better, but not as impressive as it could be, given the lens's longer minimum focusing distance.

In terms of distance to subject for a half body shot

70mm needs 3.37m
105mm needs 5.6m

Both are pretty hefty, but I would have to shoot from the end of the corridor to get a half body shot with the 105mm.

So, on those calculations, the 70mm is probably more suited to my needs.

Now I need to decide whether it is any better than continuing with my Sigma 18-50mm "macro", which has a minimum FoV of 8.4cm (at 50mm) and distance to subject for a FoV of 80cm of 0.96m (at 18mm).

Hmm.

[Loose Canon]

I want a macro lens for small scale still life. Minimum size of subject is likely to be about 10mm. Being a cheapskate, it would also be nice to double this up as a portrait lens. However, this is not as important.

Max, I’m sorry but I’m having some problems following you here. You mentioned in your OP you wanted a macro lens for small-scale still life. Portraiture being secondary. I just noticed in your last post you seem to have made a migration to placing more importance on portraiture considerations.

I’ll offer some thoughts on your OP as regards still life though it appears you have come close to a decision. What the heck! I had it ready to post anyway!

My macro shooting is pretty much confined to the studio, but when I acquired my 100mm (equiv.) that wasn’t the case. I don’t really do bugs or flowers so much anymore but like most folks that is what I started with using the macro. Now it’s mostly jewelry-type stuff with the macro glass, which I guess one might consider still life possibly. But I have bumped the wall with the 100mm., full frame camera. One thing I do, however, which may coincide with what you are looking at, is a lot of lighting when using the macro glass.

For my purposes, there is just no way anything below 100mm equivalent is practical due to working distance considerations. I consider this a minimum and it’s great for the larger subjects. Say, a watch or pendant with chain. Other subjects not so much. Such as a ring for example. In order to have enough room for the lighting I have to frame pretty wide and crop with a ring. I don’t know for sure but I would guess a ring would come close to your 10mm size. Maybe slightly larger.

Once I get lights with their associated modifiers, usually even more diffusion added (panels, etc.) into the mix I need quite a bit of room between the camera and subject. But of course, I couldn’t say how much lighting/room you will require.

Here are a couple of examples of what I am referring to lighting set-wise. These are for a ring and a watch and are similar. The primary difference is how much of the frame the subject takes up with the 100mm.

Ring lighting...




Watch lighting...




The wall I’m bumping up against is that framing of the shot. For the 10mm (or thereabouts) stuff, and with 100mm equiv. glass I’m not able to get the subject framed large enough for my taste and would rather not have to crop so severely. I don’t even worry about DoF because I’m not afraid to stop down. If that isn’t good enough for what I need I just open up and stack it.

So for quite a while now I have been looking at 180mm (equiv.). I know I could put it to good use and will love it, but have just been putting it off. I’d say it’s inevitable and probably sooner rather than later now.

I would likely find that even in a non-macro scenario the 180mm would get some good use even for greater working distances. I rarely use the 100mm for anything but close-up work.

So what is it exactly that I’m trying to say?

My experience with it is saying that if I were going to choose one macro lens it would be the longer 180mm (equiv.). This because of the ability to get a tighter framing of the subject at the working distance needed to accommodate the lighting I need.

[xpatUSA]

Putting this in here in case it is of any use to anyone else.

So, with a minimum focusing distance of 25.7cm, the Sigma 70mm macro has a minimum FoV of 5.5cm, which isn't too shoddy.

In terms of distance to subject for a half body shot

70mm needs 3.37m

Hmm.

I have, or have had, all three lenses that you mentioned. Of the three, the 70mm was the best (1:1, 9 blades, flat field, etc, blah di blah) see http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...uct/964/cat/30

It is a DG (full frame) lens with a 34.3 deg. diagonal angle of view based on a full frame diagonal of 43.2mm and based on infinite focus distance.

On a Canon APS-C with a 26.82mm diagonal angle of view, that angle becomes 21.69 deg again at infinite distance.

Not sure where your "minimum FOV" comes from, so can't comment on that. Is it width, height or diagonal?

Us pedants are far more comfortable with angles for this kind of stuff anyway :-)

[xpatUSA]

One thing I do, however, which may coincide with what you are looking at, is a lot of lighting when using the macro glass.





The wall I’m bumping up against is that framing of the shot.

My experience with it is saying that if I were going to choose one macro lens it would be the longer 180mm (equiv.). This because of the ability to get a tighter framing of the subject at the working distance needed to accommodate the lighting I need.

I think we posted at the same time. That is quite a setup you have. Is it possible that the focal lengths you're talking about are dictated by the setup, what with the camera being that far away from the watch, ring, etc?

I also shoot watches, wife's eBay trinkets and find the 70mm quite adequate but which is probably explained by my primitive, un-professional home-made setup:



For watches and rings, I usually raise them up with some blocks and the camera points vertically down with a sturdy Giottos short tripod and a ball-head equipped with a long quick-release plate.

Point being, I was using an old 50mm macro for a long time and only got the 70mm because it was "better", not because I needed the extra focal length. With your setup though, I can certainly see your need for more.

[Loose Canon]

Is it possible that the focal lengths you're talking about are dictated by the setup, what with the camera being that far away from the watch, ring, etc?

Hi Ted!

Yes sir.

The focal lengths I’m looking at are indeed a function of the lighting techniques I use.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Terry, thanks for that input. No, the portraiture hasn't eclipsed the small still life. In fact, on going away and reflecting on it, my existing 50mm would do a better job with portraits than either of those two macro lenses. But it was worth working all of that out.

My set ups are not as complex as yours, but who knows where they will go when I get started? I had my first go at taking a macro shot the other day and was able to get my 50mm lens to within a couple of centimeters of the subject (with extension tubes). However, it was cramped and fiddly and involved all sorts of Heath Robinson contrivances and I would rather have had more space to work in.



Not an example of what I intend to photograph. I have no need to specialise in chocolate starfish. It was handy and I needed something to practice on.

Your account of your experiences is useful. However, I am confused. You say you need to crop severely when using 100mm, but talk about bumping into a wall. With my calculations on a cropped sensor, a 10mm object would take up only a quarter of the length of frame, at minimum focusing distance. So, I understand the need to crop, but not the danger of bumping into walls. Are you backing up or is the set up itself just too big for the space?

Ted, the calculations weren't supposed to be for anyone to actually use, just to flag up a different way to evaluate macro lenses. I haven't seen them discussed in those terms before and I found it a useful way to look at some objective data on what I could do with the various lenses. If it is of any use, the min FoV results are vertical and in centimeters, as it would be difficult to envisage what size of object would fill the sensor in degrees. Horses for courses. They are produced by feeding the lenses' minimum focusing distances into a field of view calculator.

Yes, I have heard nothing but great things about the 70mm.

This is all useful food for thought. The money is sitting in my Paypal account and I will need to make a decision soon.

[Loose Canon]

You say you need to crop severely when using 100mm, but talk about bumping into a wall. With my calculations on a cropped sensor, a 10mm object would take up only a quarter of the length of frame, at minimum focusing distance. So, I understand the need to crop, but not the danger of bumping into walls. Are you backing up or is the set up itself just too big for the space?

Apologies Max!

When I said I had “bumped the wall” what I meant was that I had reached a point where the 100mm wasn’t quite doing it for me for what I wanted/needed it to do! I didn’t mean it literally, but you would have no way to know that! I shouldn’t have used that particular phrasing and I’m sorry for the confusion.

I can’t really use the 100mm at minimum focusing distance due to my lighting requirements (too close), which is why I’m looking at some more FL. I would come closer to hitting the MFD of a longer lens/longer working distance, meaning tighter framing/less cropping. What I can use is that the macros have such a short minimum focusing distance I am assured I can use them as close as I can get them without having to resort to Heath Robinson contrivances! (I had to google Heath! Over on this side of the Pond our equivalent is Rube Goldberg!). I love the IQ and sharpness of the prime macros and love using them so between the two of us it looks like there will be more than one new lens in the offing! That’s one reason I responded to your post. That and it looks like we have definite similarities in how we will be using them.

If (more like when) I go 180mm I will definitely hang on to the 100mm. At least for a while. Probably be nice to have the option when using primes.

Max I hope we get to see the results of your decision and what you will be shooting. I would be very interested in seeing what you are going to do and how you are going to do it.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Terry, you had me laughing there, between the bumping the wall and the Heath Robinson. Two nations divided by a common language.

Yes, the very reason I am looking to go longer; the inconvenience of having my nose right up against my subject with what I already have, singeing my hair on the lamps as I go. I am still closer to getting the 70mm than the 105mm, but suspect that I will exhaust that at some point and need to go longer. I am not an equipment freak and only buy a lens when I REALLY see a need for it, and this one is pushing that criterion. I don't REALLY need it. It would just be slightly more convenient. I have been playing with photography for seven years now and I only have three lenses and one of those I don't use. I would say I am on a slippery slope, but if I have managed to avoid sliding down it for this long, I am sure I am now safe. Probably...

Anyway, here's to enjoying the thrill of the lens chase and playing with our prey, once we have caught it.

[Glenn NK]

I am not sure what you have read but there are no "difficulties" in using a full frame camera for macro. The only difference is that you will get more of your subject in the frame for a given magnification with full frame which I don't consider a negative. As has been stated before, the depth of field and working distance for a given magnification is not dependent on sensor size. You still have the option of increasing the distance to the subject to get an increase in depth of field due to the resulting reduction in magnification like a crop sensor forces you to do for larger subjects.

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one needs a full frame camera for macro. I'm just tired of folks talking about the disadvantages (other than size and price) of full frame cameras.

John

My personal experience (closeup flower photography) is that a 100 mm macro lens works very well on my APS-C body.

However when I added a FF body to my kit, I was frustrated and soon realized that for what I do, I would require a longer focal length (is this why Canon's next longer macro lens is 180 mm ?).

I tried rings (frustrating), I tried a 2EX (frustrating), and when I acquired a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, the problems were solved.

Granted, my experience and technique is likely quite different than others, and this may account for my frustration, but once I adjusted the lens FL, I have a solution.

For example, my tulip avatar was taken with an APS-C body with a 100 mm macro lens. It would also have worked with the FF and a 160 mm FL (which is where the 70/200 is useful, however much heavier).

Glenn

[jcuknz]

But, hell, I have started the move towards getting a new lens and I will damn well get one! .

Oh Hell! It sounds like the DSLR/ILC sickness has another victim

[Max von MeiselMaus]

And I was so proud that I had resisted for so long! I thought I was immune. I was wrong!

Interesting points on the 100mm, Glenn. The 70mm I have in my sights would do roughly the same job on my 60D as the 100mm did on your FF, so something for me to think about.