Jump to content
SParkinson

50mm Macro lens advice needed

Recommended Posts

i hate asking these kinda questions...

 

i know which one i'd use if it were purely topside but dunno what they're like uw.

 

I need a 50 macro lens... it's gonna be either a sigma or the canon 50. canon doesn't do 1:1 outta the box and is limited to min focus of 23cm. the sigma will do 1:1 and min focus is near as dammit to 19cm and will go to F45 on the canon mount. if it were purely topside i'd go with the sigma but have no uw knowledge on the sigma. i've seen the canon's uw attempts and they're v nice. both use the same ports so no problem there. anyone have any ideas on this?

 

oh.... and my ike flat port for my 100 is only 16mm longer than the one i need for a 50..... i'm guessing it's not ideal but should also be fine to use on one of these 50's too? ike suggests the 5505 for either 50 and i have a 5505.45 for my 100... as i say, 16mm difference in length.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i hate asking these kinda questions...

 

i know which one i'd use if it were purely topside but dunno what they're like uw.

 

I need a 50 macro lens... it's gonna be either a sigma or the canon 50. canon doesn't do 1:1 outta the box and is limited to min focus of 23cm. the sigma will do 1:1 and min focus is near as dammit to 19cm and will go to F45 on the canon mount. if it were purely topside i'd go with the sigma but have no uw knowledge on the sigma. i've seen the canon's uw attempts and they're v nice. both use the same ports so no problem there. anyone have any ideas on this?

 

oh.... and my ike flat port for my 100 is only 16mm longer than the one i need for a 50..... i'm guessing it's not ideal but should also be fine to use on one of these 50's too? ike suggests the 5505 for either 50 and i have a 5505.45 for my 100... as i say, 16mm difference in length.

 

cheers

 

I have Sigma 50 mm macro and would recommend it. Much sharper than Canon 100 mm. I read complaints about slow AF, but have not noticed any, I would say it is as fast as Canon 100 mm and even has slightly better focusing in low light conditions. This is my first Sigma lens ever and surprisingly good. I managed to put the lens in Subal 120/3 port and there is marginal vignetting when the lens is fully retracted. The main challenge with this lens is 1:1 focusing distance being very close to the front element, so if you put it in the bigger port there might be lighting issues at close focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have Sigma 50 mm macro and would recommend it. Much sharper than Canon 100 mm. I read complaints about slow AF, but have not noticed any, I would say it is as fast as Canon 100 mm and even has slightly better focusing in low light conditions. This is my first Sigma lens ever and surprisingly good. I managed to put the lens in Subal 120/3 port and there is marginal vignetting when the lens is fully retracted. The main challenge with this lens is 1:1 focusing distance being very close to the front element, so if you put it in the bigger port there might be lighting issues at close focus.

i'd recommend the sigma 50 as well out of the two as it goes 1:1 and the canon does not.

i am assuming the poster above meant sharper than the canon 50mm not 100mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also use the Sigma 50mm, and IMHO it's one of the best lens values around! I also have the Canon 50mm (or did before I gave it away-once I got the Sigma, I never used the Canon again). I've had no problem with AF on the Sigma 50mm - it is very quick (and accurate) focusing, and it'll do close macro work when you need it to (nudi's, etc.). I think it's the perfect complement to the Canon 100mm; the 50mm can serve as a good fish lens (the 100mm is too long for that), and is far easier to focus in low light situations (and night dives -- it is my night dive lens of choice). In fact, often when a dive guide says a site has some nice reef and fish, but also some macro, I take the Sigma 50mm because it lets me shoot both. If you KNOW you want to shoot all macro on a dive, or real wide angle, you're likely better taking the 100mm or a true wide angle lens. But I find many instances where having a "jack of all trades/master of none" lens like the 50mm is desirable.

 

As for the port question, hopefully you'll find someone here using it with your port; I can't answer that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

Unless you are shooting a full frame Canon dSLR (Canon 5D or EOS 1D MKIIS) have you considered the Canon 60mm EF-S? Goes continuously down to 1:1, is a newer lens design and very compact. It is a bit more $$$$ than the Sigma, but definitely faster AF.

 

The older Canon 50mm macro lens (like 15+ years old!) only does 1:2 unless you buy and use an extension tube which then locks you into between 1:2 and 1:1 for the whole dive.

 

Just curious why you haven't considered the Canon 60mm. Unless it's because it is an EF-S lens usable only on Canon cropped sensor bodies (except the old Canon 10D.)

 

YMMV

 

dhaas

 

post-244-1170251208_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks all - have decided to go with the Sigma as everyone seems to feel the same way.. I figured it was going to be the better option but needed a little push... 50 over the 60 is simply down to the fact that it's a 10D :)

 

thanks again all - much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...