I was going to post same question, in my own way.
I was planning on getting the Sigma 50mm which is crisp clear and superb in all ways (except minor meaningless stuff like AF).
But I found the 70mm and read about TIPA awarding it the "Best Expert Lens" award for 2007.
I'm probably getting it on Thrusday. Damn, wasn't planning on paying that much atm but it sure seems worth the money.
Finding reviews and test is practically impossible. The best reults I've got are these links:
http://www.tipa.com/awa_detail_2007.lasso?-Search=Action&-Table=web&-Database=awards_2007&-KeyValue=119
http://whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/review/Sigma_70mm__f/2.8_EX_DG__Macro_11347.php
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=348
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-70mm-f28-EX-DG-Macro
It is pretty tough to find a bad macro lens from a major manufacturer these days. Canon, Nikon, Minolta (or whoever owns it now), Pentax, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron are all very sharp.
Generally, the Nikon and Canon selections are at the top of the heap, but the Sigma, especially the 150 mm, is supposed to be almost interchangeable with respect to quality. Good enough that several people whose opinion I respect even claim that Sigma 150 is sharper, and the Canon and Nikons are absolutely first-rate pieces of glass.
For focal length, if you are doing a lot of insect photography, the longer the focal length, the better. I would try to stay at least in the 90 - 100mm range. Working distance is everything if you subject can run away.
The other reason is a much narrow field of view. It becomes a lot easier to control the background with a longer macro and you'll find that the results are consistantly more pleasing.
For nature photography, I'd stay away from the 50-55 mm macros. The man reasons are working distance (effectively none) and the field of view will make controlling the background a lot tougher. The 70mm, with a digital body and APS sensor, would put you around 105-110 mm, which is a lot better. The 50's are great lenses, just not as well suited to nature photography as a longer lens.
Balancing all this is your budget. If you can do it, go for at least a 90-105 mm. I'd vote for the longer 150 Sigma, or the 180 to 200's from your camera's manufacturer.
(edit: I guess I never did directly address the Sigma 70 mm. I haven't seen reviews for that lens, but Sigma has been making some wonderful macros in recent years. With an APS sensor, that is probably the minimum focal length I would consider. If you shooting film, I'd look for something longer)
I could not resist buying the 70mm Sigma macro after all the great user reports, reviews and TIPA award.
I needed one now that summer is around the corner and my camera fingers are itching. I got old lenses from the 70's but wanted something new for my D200. So, yes, I get the APS-C format making it a 105mm. It also has a benefit against the 150mm and it's the size and weight. Also, when I compared the image sharpness of the Sigma 50mm to any of the other brands (Canon, Tamron, Sigma) 90+ makros it's far sharper on the reivew sites test images.
Discussion
3 repliesThanks!
Glenn
I was planning on getting the Sigma 50mm which is crisp clear and superb in all ways (except minor meaningless stuff like AF).
But I found the 70mm and read about TIPA awarding it the "Best Expert Lens" award for 2007.
I'm probably getting it on Thrusday. Damn, wasn't planning on paying that much atm but it sure seems worth the money.
Finding reviews and test is practically impossible. The best reults I've got are these links:
http://www.tipa.com/awa_detail_2007.lasso?-Search=Action&-Table=web&-Database=awards_2007&-KeyValue=119
http://whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/review/Sigma_70mm__f/2.8_EX_DG__Macro_11347.php
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=348
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-70mm-f28-EX-DG-Macro
Generally, the Nikon and Canon selections are at the top of the heap, but the Sigma, especially the 150 mm, is supposed to be almost interchangeable with respect to quality. Good enough that several people whose opinion I respect even claim that Sigma 150 is sharper, and the Canon and Nikons are absolutely first-rate pieces of glass.
For focal length, if you are doing a lot of insect photography, the longer the focal length, the better. I would try to stay at least in the 90 - 100mm range. Working distance is everything if you subject can run away.
The other reason is a much narrow field of view. It becomes a lot easier to control the background with a longer macro and you'll find that the results are consistantly more pleasing.
For nature photography, I'd stay away from the 50-55 mm macros. The man reasons are working distance (effectively none) and the field of view will make controlling the background a lot tougher. The 70mm, with a digital body and APS sensor, would put you around 105-110 mm, which is a lot better. The 50's are great lenses, just not as well suited to nature photography as a longer lens.
Balancing all this is your budget. If you can do it, go for at least a 90-105 mm. I'd vote for the longer 150 Sigma, or the 180 to 200's from your camera's manufacturer.
(edit: I guess I never did directly address the Sigma 70 mm. I haven't seen reviews for that lens, but Sigma has been making some wonderful macros in recent years. With an APS sensor, that is probably the minimum focal length I would consider. If you shooting film, I'd look for something longer)
I could not resist buying the 70mm Sigma macro after all the great user reports, reviews and TIPA award.
I needed one now that summer is around the corner and my camera fingers are itching. I got old lenses from the 70's but wanted something new for my D200. So, yes, I get the APS-C format making it a 105mm. It also has a benefit against the 150mm and it's the size and weight. Also, when I compared the image sharpness of the Sigma 50mm to any of the other brands (Canon, Tamron, Sigma) 90+ makros it's far sharper on the reivew sites test images.