Going macro with canon

[Overread]

ahh no its not that I don't think the canon is a good choice (rereading it does seem that I am running an anti canon run here though without intending it).
I have also found that both the sigma lenses have slower autofocusing than the canon - which is another factor - as even though one should use manual with macro as it is more accurate, its often hard to leave the comfort zone of AF.

65mm macro its very good, has a huge 5* magification and is very tricky to get right when you start out with it

 

[usayit]

65mm macro is a real beast and very difficult to use... I would only recommend it to someone who is seasoned in macro photography. It would not be the first time I saw someone stray away from macro photography from frustrations from the lens rather than macro itself.

Overread, I do understand the "want" to expand your line of lenses but please try to understand just how difficult it is to shoot 1:1 without A LOT of light which is only possible with a good macro flash. Look at some insect photos and notice how the DOF at times can be just a centimeter or two even at f/11 or f/16.

[EDIT]
DOF Example
Canon 5D (full frame)
100mm focal length
Subject distance of 30 cm (about 1 foot)
Aperture = f/11

DOF near limit = 29.8 cm
DOF far limit = 30.2 cm
Total DOF = 0.41cm.

Now just imagine not having a flash and having to open up to f/2.8 for a shot... IMO, its practically impossible.

 

[lifeafter2am]

65mm macro is a real beast and very difficult to use... I would only recommend it to someone who is seasoned in macro photography. It would not be the first time I saw someone stray away from macro photography from frustrations from the lens rather than macro itself.
.

Oh I completely agree! There is no way I would hand my 65mm to a new macro shooter. It inspires frustration in me, and I know what it is capable of and how to use it (somewhat).

 

[Overread]

I understand your point USA - though macro at 2.8, well that would mean stitching shots together for sure. I also think that my recent macro has been in the midday to early afternoon light, so its been blessed with very strong light sources, rather than limited light.

I suppose it does not help that one forums is saying 100mm and another is saying 150mm
For what it is worth it seems that (with some googling) the 100mm macro is a very popular and good lens - however too many views are in the "I have only got this one lens" line whilst comparisons seem to be hiding from me - or don't really cut a fine dividing line between any of the choices I have at the moment.

 

[250Gimp]

Did you check the reviews on Fred Miranda??

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

That may help you out a bit.

They also have a dedicated macro thread on their forum, you may want to post up a question there.

Cheers

 

[Overread]

Bringing this back now

anyway I think I have decided to go for the sigma 150mm for the exrta working distance (and the included hood and tripod grip ).
Now I hope to use this with the sigma teleconverters to get a longer focal length which can help lead to getting some wonderful bokahs - however whilst I have read and seen results from its use with the 1.4mm I have not found much on its use with the 2* teleconverter. So has anyone any experiences and is it a good choice to make - or is the loss in quliaty too much?