Zoom Lens that has Macro Featured Built In

[jg123]

I read in another post about a reasonably priced zoom lens 70mm 300mm I think that also had a macro feature built in, would this work better than buying a seperate marcro filter?

thanks

 

[Chibamonkey]

I have a moderately priced Tamron 70-300mm zoom that does have Macro built in.....have never used the macro features, as I bought the lens for telephoto use in rough, harsh conditions. Will have to play w/ the macro on that lens to see how well it performs.

 

[Drake]

I wouldn't call it a macro. I do have the lens. Well, the Sigma version. Yeah, it does have a macro switch, which enables you to focus not within 150cm but within 95cm from your subject. And that's about it. I wouldn't call it a macro keeping in mind it's poor magnification, even at 300mm. You can get similar results setting a kit lens on 55mm and moving closer to the subject.

 

[High Rouleur]

I wouldn't call it a macro. I do have the lens. Well, the Sigma version. Yeah, it does have a macro switch, which enables you to focus not within 150cm but within 95cm from your subject. And that's about it. I wouldn't call it a macro keeping in mind it's poor magnification, even at 300mm. You can get similar results setting a kit lens on 55mm and moving closer to the subject.

I also have the sigma 70-300 Macro, and I agree that it's not a true macro lens. It just lets you get a bit closer to the subject. However, I disagree that you'd get similar results with the kit lens at 55mm. I don't think my kit lens would let me get close enough to make a very small subject fill the viewfinder the way my Sigma does. This shot was taken with the Sigma, and I can't imagine I could get it with the kit lens. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121257 Regardless, to the OP...if you want a true macro lens, don't go with the Sigma 70-300.

 

[Drake]

Yeah, you're right, it is a bit better than the kit lens, but still, not what you'd call a macro lens. I think I'll shoot a few frames of the same subject to compare them in terms of macro performance.

 

[rubbertree]

I also have the sigma telephoto macro and it is not a true macro lens, more like a good close up lens. I think the magnification is 1:3.5 whereas a macro is at least 1:1.

 

[ZacMan1987]

I have this lens as well. At highest "macro" range, it is 1:3.5. It is a nice lens, but hardly macro. Mine is a Tamron, and my only complaint is that the built-in focus motor is LOUD. Don't expect to be shooting in AF and getting up on any jumpy subjects.

 

[nicfargo]

Macro is a marketing term they throw around loosely, and one you have to be careful of. Macro, in terms of lenses, means anything better then 1:1 magnification (the 5:1 canon would be awesome btw!!!). So even though the 70-300 says macro, it is not. Canon has 5 macro lens (canon brand, not including tamron, sigma, etc). The 50mm, the 100mm, the 180 mm L, the EF-S mount 60mm, and the MP-E 65mm (5x magnification). Everything else that says macro really isn't.

 

[jg123]

So how about adding a macro filter, what does that do and what results could I expect?