Author Message

<  General Chatting  ~  Ooh oh oh ouch ouch ouch ouch e e e ouchy ouch ouch oucccchh

PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:57 pm
User avatarPosts: 1558Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 4:00 am
Just got my new sigma 150mm f2.8 macro prime, H-b-jeezus is the sharpest lens I've ever used, sharper than me mates canon L 300mm prime, and the canon 85mm prime im currently borrowing from someone else. Wank pic but here is off cam, resized and saved for web in potato shop:

Image

The jpg ruins it, but in raw the bokeh is super smoooooth like a buttery smooth thing with some runny buttery smoothness on top,

Highly recommended if your after a prime of that focal range and/or a macro lens of good working distance (tried the canon 100mm, was a little short for my enjoyed working range)



_________________
Image
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:35 pm
User avatarPosts: 1558Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 4:00 am
Couple more just messing around shots, again not great photos, although I quite like the fishy one :D (The fish btw is about 1.5 inches long, shows how close can focus with this thing!)

Image

And just messin with DOF

Image



_________________
Image
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:58 pm
Posts: 587Location: Stanton / DerbyshireJoined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:00 am
Indeed as you know this lens has been on my list for a good while now. Stills saving the pennies. Maybe next year. I'm sure you will love it, didn't realise macro work was your thing, but will double up as a nice prime also.

Looking forward to seeing some more pics, and you will have to let me have a play with it at crimbo!

See you soon



_________________
My Flickr Photos
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:18 pm
User avatarPosts: 1558Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 4:00 am
Ahh mint dude, didnt know you were after it, thought you had a macro lens going by what shots you done already! lol

Just used it at a studio shoot with a couple models, its amazing, will upload an eye shot I got with it shortly



_________________
Image
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:41 pm
User avatarPosts: 1558Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 4:00 am
Took it to a studio shoot tonight, and its fantastic, here is a close up of the models eye:

Image

I've burned the edges to try and make it stand out, not sure if it works,lol



_________________
Image
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:38 am
User avatarCridaperPosts: 13970Location: WolverhamptonJoined: Mon May 31, 2004 4:00 am
Just because it says Macro on the box doesn't mean it's specifically for macro work, it's just that some manufacturers choose to stick it in the product name, particularly the likes of Sigma and Tamaron. It is essentially a 150mm prime with the ability to focus very close, if you look a lot of primes you'll be suprised at how close most of them focus, it's just that a lot don't stick macro in the name because 9/10 people looking at lenses are going to take the focusing distance into account when they buy.

Matt has at least one lens that focuses really close, this might be why your confused about him not having a 'macro' lens. Effectively everyone on here with a DSLR probably has a macro capable lens of some kind, it just might not say it on the tin so to speak.

As Matt has touched upon this should make a good prime lens particularly for portrait work (although it might be too sharp for a lot of portraits). I'm keen to see a head shot from around 12ft away at about f5 to see how much of the torso is in shot and what the bokeh and sharpness is like. Have you got an example like this or have you been using it exclusively for macro stuff?



_________________
Cookies & Java
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:36 pm
User avatarPosts: 1558Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 4:00 am
Well yeah I know that much about macro lenses, your refeering to true 1:1 or not macro ability I assume, yep some normal lenses have 'macro' wacked on them as they can focus quite close, but I remember matt telling me about an old school nikon macro lens he got off ebay for cheap is all, cant quite remember,

I got this lens for 3 reasons:

1) Macro work at 1:1, I.e. true macro , not 'near macro'

2) Portraiture work, I wanted sharp as I could get

3) A prime 'short telephoto' for some wildlife work, I plan to get 1.4x and 2x converters as I've seen that (at least on the 1.4) you still get much sharper images than from a canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS for example, with 1.4 it would be 210mm, and obviously a 300mm prime at 2x, spot on for my needs, I know that at 150, 210 it will be almost as sharp at either focal length, as for the 2x converter, ill find out, surely at least as good as a zoom L glass.

And yep was in the studio last night getting some portrait stuff, ill upload later on



_________________
Image
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:12 pm
User avatarItsukiPosts: 4790Location: TeanJoined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:00 am
Certainly a sharp lens from what we can see from the resized JPEGS Ben!

Interesting reasons for getting this particular lens I have to say... I can understand No. 1 for sure, especially if you'd like to explore macro a little, but reasons 2 & 3 make less sense for me if you don't mind me saying...

Reason 2 is purely an opinion thing for me; I think 150mm is a bit long for a portrait and I also think that portrait lenses can be "too" sharp, but as I say that's just me...

Reason 3 is a bit different though; swapping (or buying) this particular setup (150mm + 1.4x & 2x teleconverters) over a 70-200 IS L lens seems a bit strange to me. Personally I see the Canon L has having many more pros than the Sigma setup... With the Sigma you do get a bit of extra light thanks to the larger aperture but the IS will offset this and I'm sure with the 2x teleconverter you wouldn't want to use f1.4 anyway lest you run the risk of having too shallow a depth of field. I also think that a zoom lens offers huge benefits over 3 fixed focal lengths for wildlife photography; by the time you've popped your lens off, chucked on the appropriate teleconverter and put it all back on again the thing you might've wanted to get a shot of has probably fooked off. A naff example I'm sure, but a zoom lens will allow you to photograph a duck at 200mm and then a heron flying over it's head at 125mm... a lens and teleconverters won't. Opinion at the end of course, and though the bokeh may be slightly uglier (though with L glass I doubt it) I also think a 70-200 will give you a much better range for portraiture. Ok, it's a strangely big-looking lens for that kind of work, but as users of the "nifty 50"on APS-C will know, 80mm is a beautiful short telephoto focal length for portraits...

Just my two-penneth mind!


Last edited by Dawson on Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.


_________________
Image
methinksperchance.net
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:12 pm
User avatarCridaperPosts: 13970Location: WolverhamptonJoined: Mon May 31, 2004 4:00 am
combatsquirrel wrote:

3) A prime 'short telephoto' for some wildlife work, I plan to get 1.4x and 2x converters as I've seen that (at least on the 1.4) you still get much sharper images than from a canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS for example, with 1.4 it would be 210mm, and obviously a 300mm prime at 2x, spot on for my needs, I know that at 150, 210 it will be almost as sharp at either focal length, as for the 2x converter, ill find out, surely at least as good as a zoom L glass.


Depends on what you mean by 'as good' really, image koala-tea yes but I think it might drive you crazy trying to shoot wildlife without a zoom, but it depends on what you have in mind by wildlife I guess. Obviously very useful for shooting birds on a feeder since they'll always be a set distance, less so when roaming around.



_________________
Cookies & Java
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:18 pm
User avatarCridaperPosts: 13970Location: WolverhamptonJoined: Mon May 31, 2004 4:00 am
Dawson wrote:
Reason 2 is purely an opinion thing for me; I think 150mm is a bit long for a portrait and I also think that portrait lenses can be "too" sharp, but as I say that's just me...


You're not alone on the too sharp issue.

Portrait is a little ambigious a term, could be anything from face to full body, 150mm would be headshot only I think. I work at around 110mm for portraits but go for the head, shoulders and upper chest.



_________________
Cookies & Java
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:21 pm
User avatarItsukiPosts: 4790Location: TeanJoined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:00 am
I'm just thinking at 150mm you're going to be halfway across a hall trying to get a head and shoulders portrait going on... Perhaps it's not so important but I would think it would be hard to connect with whoever you're photographing when you're that far away...

I agree with the ambiguity sure...



_________________
Image
methinksperchance.net
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:32 pm
User avatarCridaperPosts: 13970Location: WolverhamptonJoined: Mon May 31, 2004 4:00 am
It's too long for a head and shoulders shot that's for sure, it would put you back a lot longer than the ideal 12ft from the subject so the perspective would be less than ideal regardless of connecting with them.



_________________
Cookies & Java
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:37 pm
User avatarItsukiPosts: 4790Location: TeanJoined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:00 am
12ft eh? You learn something every day :cry:



_________________
Image
methinksperchance.net
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:06 pm
User avatarCridaperPosts: 13970Location: WolverhamptonJoined: Mon May 31, 2004 4:00 am
Well OK I say 12ft is ideal but that's my own personal preference, I wouldn't go closer than 10ft if I could help it.



_________________
Cookies & Java
Offline Profile E-mail WWW
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:08 pm
User avatarItsukiPosts: 4790Location: TeanJoined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:00 am
Ahhh ok... wondered if it was something quoted alongside the 80mm focal length which seems to be the portrait norm! That sort of distance makes sense though for sure...



_________________
Image
methinksperchance.net
Offline Profile E-mail WWW

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:

All times are UTC
Page 1 of 4
48 posts
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests
Search for:
Post new topic  Reply to topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
cron