Lenses arrived! question...

[giorgio]

Hi

I just picked up the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8

now...

I knew the Sigma was/had Macro.. but..
When I took the box and said "...Macro" on the side I suddenly realize I may have made a mistake¿? maybe?...

question:
Is the "Macro" on my Sigma 24-70 2.8mm an additional feature, capability? or a type of lense that actually compromise some other characteristics?

I actually only wanted a fast mid range zoom lense(walk around, portrait, interiors, etc.), not particulary interested in photographing tiny things.

I saw the "other" Sigma 24-70 2.8mm that was 250.00usd more, had HSM(AF motor) and Not macro.
And because I didn't care about the HSM and thought that's mainly why it was more expensive, I went with the cheaper one, NO HSM and saw the "Macro" as a plus.

Actually I haven't yet completely understand the "Macro" nature of a lense, I know is aimed for tiny things but not sure how it is for the "normal" stuff(no tiny things).

BTW, is huge! is like 5 times bigger than the Nikkor 50mm 1.4
The zoom ring is at the back and I kept grabbing the Focus ring, a matter of getting used to it I guess.

thank you very much

 

[JimmyO]

Hahahhaha


"Macro" on normal non macro specific lenses is a advertising gimmick if the lens focuses within a few feet.

 

[giorgio]

Hahahhaha


"Macro" on normal non macro specific lenses is a advertising gimmick if the lens focuses within a few feet.

Oh!...
so the "Macro" stuff in this case is just "able to focus on closer range"?

If I wasn't looking for a "real" Macro is all fine then?

thank you

 

[Big Mike]

Many lens/photography companies use 'Macro' as a catch word for marketing.

I consider a lens to be a true Macro lens when it can achieve 1:1 reproduction (the actual size of the object is the same size as the image on the film/sensor. Some lenses can do this, but most can't. Some companies will put the macro tag on a lens, even if it can only get 4:1 reproduction.

The basic feature of a macro lens (vs a normal lens) is the minimum focus distance. The closer you can get to the subject, the larger it gets in the image.

In your case, I don't think the lens is capable of true macro, it's probably just a little better than the previous version from Sigma, so this one gets a macro label. You can still use it as a normal range zoom, you aren't missing out on anything. (well, you are missing out on HSM, which is a nice feature).

 

[giorgio]

Many lens/photography companies use 'Macro' as a catch word for marketing.

I consider a lens to be a true Macro lens when it can achieve 1:1 reproduction (the actual size of the object is the same size as the image on the film/sensor. Some lenses can do this, but most can't. Some companies will put the macro tag on a lens, even if it can only get 4:1 reproduction.

The basic feature of a macro lens (vs a normal lens) is the minimum focus distance. The closer you can get to the subject, the larger it gets in the image.

In your case, I don't think the lens is capable of true macro, it's probably just a little better than the previous version from Sigma, so this one gets a macro label. You can still use it as a normal range zoom, you aren't missing out on anything. (well, you are missing out on HSM, which is a nice feature).

ok, thank you very much

:thumbup:

 

[giorgio]

Well, so far, at first glance I just don't like how big the Sigma 24-70 2.8 is/looks, certainly don't feel it like a walk around type or for having it most of the time on the camera, for which I thought of in the first place.
Unless of course I put it on for intentional use or on asignment.

Then again I may have get used to it and /or if that is how 24-70 2.8 lenses are in general there's not to much to do then in order to have that range.

The 50mm 1.4 feels and looks very practical, light, not to much attention grabber, well, it does grab some attenton but in a good way.

 

[Big Mike]

Then again I may have get used to it and /or if that is how 24-70 2.8 lenses are in general there's not to much to do then in order to have that range.

Yes, that's pretty much the size of F2.8 zoom lenses.

The Canon version, 24-70mm F2.8 L, is nicknamed 'The Brick' :er:

 

[BLD_007]

Then again I may have get used to it and /or if that is how 24-70 2.8 lenses are in general there's not to much to do then in order to have that range.

Yes, that's pretty much the size of F2.8 zoom lenses.

The Canon version, 24-70mm F2.8 L, is nicknamed 'The Brick' :er:

I just ordered the 24-70. Why is it a brick?

 

[Big Mike]

Why is it a brick?

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight..........3.3" x 4.9", 2.1 lbs. / 83.2mm x 123.5mm, 950g

 

[Derrel]

The Canon version, 24-70mm F2.8 L, is nicknamed 'The Brick' :er:

Yup...24-70mm f/2.8 and 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses CAN BE made small and light, like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens, which is quite small and light for its aperture.

Nikon used to make a 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S lens which was nicknamed The Beast. BIG, HEAVY, made the camera nose-dive forward, hurt your wrist after 30 minutes...

By making these lenses physically larger, with larger lens elements, it is easier to fully correct the lens to achieve the highest-possible image quality with the lowest need for absolute grinding precision. When charging large amounts of money, some customers expect the lens maker to give them the BEST optical quality possible for the money,and making a physically large design the optical designers can correct the lens more easily and more reliably across the production process by "going big". Zeiss pioneered the idea of allowing lenses to be physically large in the 1960's. It really works!

I call these large lenses "coffee can lenses",since they remind me of a can of Cafe Bustelo in shape and size.

 

[Big Mike]

I call these large lenses "coffee can lenses",since they remind me of a can of Cafe Bustelo in shape and size.

The Canon 85mm F1.2 L reminds me of a coffee mug. The front element is about that large and from the right angle, it look hollow like a mug.

 

[Derrel]

Minolta's old 70-210 used to be called "The Beer Can".

Nikon's 400mm f/3.5 looks like a giant MagLite,and some call it "The Flashlight".

Canon's 200mm f/2.8 was called "The Prime Pipe" by one prominent Canonian web author.

Nikon's 45mm f/2.8 P is a teeny-tiny, truly dimunitive lens, often called the "where did I put that damned thing!!??" lens.

As to the mega-speed lenses, I think they cause some issues. I call it "the bazooka factor"; people see you pointing that huge lens at them, and they flee like it was a bazooka aimed their way.

 

[Big Mike]

Don't forget the 'Magic Drain Pipe', Canon 80-200mm F2.8 L
I almost bought one a few years ago, before I got the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS.

 

[djacobox372]

The older version of the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 are pretty light and small compared to sigmas and nikons.

 

[bigtwinky]

I have a newer version of the Tamron 28-75 and like it very much for a walkaround lens. I would prefer a bit wider, as the 28mm on a crop camera is pretty long, but for the price paid, I like it very much.

It is a bit slower to focus, but you get used to that.