I think my macro lens was a mistake.

DRT-Maverick

Years ago I bought my first macro lens. I was young, and my primary reason for buying it was butterfly photography. Now that about 3 to 4 years has passed I find myself regretting buying the Sigma 180mm F3.5 1:1 macro lens.

I'm not saying it doesn't perform well, it performs just as you'd imagine, and it is perfect for butterflies, as you can be far enough from them to use a tripod and not bother them with the lens. The quality is beautiful as well, but these things aren't the problems.

The First major problem is it's slow, most macros are F2.8, some are faster. This makes it terrible for the macrophotography I've been getting into lately. Mushroom photography. Yes I have fallen in love with the little things, they're beautiful, but they grow in dark areas where having a faster speed and a more shallow DOF means many things, from less blur to less background. (Though the 180mm zoom almost makes up for that by giving it much more of a shallow field than a wide angle).
The second problem is it's HEAVY and it's BULKY. This thing weighs in at 34 ounces (2.125lbs), and it's 180mm (7.2inches) (not including lenshood) long. This is a true bohemeth among true macro lenses, and when you're backpacking out in the wilderness, with the camera and battery pack, 4 other lenses, tripod, backpacking gear and food, it becomes quite a burden. It's also cumbersome in tight areas where you can't really back up anymore to get more of the object in.

I've truly been thinking of buying another 50mm lens in addition, and using this for insect photography. I'm just buying a telephoto lens first, because my current zoom telephoto isn't doing it for aviary photography. :dunno

SloYerRoll

DRT-Maverick wrote:

The First major problem is it's slow, most macros are F2.8, some are faster. This makes it terrible for the macrophotography I've been getting into lately. Mushroom photography. Yes I have fallen in love with the little things, they're beautiful, but they grow in dark areas where having a faster speed and a more shallow DOF means many things, from less blur to less background.

It sounds like your using ambient light for macro photography? I've been studying macros for a while since my rig is in the mail. But I've had lighting and all the other components for a while.
When you say that mushrooms grow in the dark. Do you mean that the places your going don't have any ambient daylight? Most wildlife is exposed to sun at least for a short duration of time

Just trying to help you make the best out of what you think is a poor purchase.

Cheers,
-Jon

Lord Vetinari

Hmm - difficult one that- Have to say I always recommend users to get a 100mm macro unless there is a very good reason for getting the longer lens because the longer lenses are just harder to use.

The only reasons I've heard for having 150/180 mm macro lenses boil down to a better bokeh which is true and being able to photograph skittish insects which is a bit more debatable ( I have no problems with my sigma 105mm in this respect).

brian V.

pathfinder

I don't think the difference between f3.5 like most 180macros are, and f2.8 like most 90 and 100-105 macros are, amounts to very much at all.

Most of my macros are actually shot at f8 or f11 for more DOF, thus the 1/2 stop less light with the 180s are insignificant. For really sharp macros, consider using an off camera flash of some sort. That will give you the greater light you are desiring. The greater reach of the 180s allows less DOF if desired, and more working room from the subject for lighting. If you do not need these, the Canon 60 f2.8 EFS or the Sigma 70 f2.8 might work better for you. Sigma lenses frequently seem to weigh more than other brands, not sure why.

If weight is the issue, consider extension tubes - they weigh very little and take up little room when hiking afield. But are not nearly as convenient to use.

My Tamron 180 is my preferred macro device, and I also own a Cannon 100 and a Sigma 150 f2.8. YMMV

Who says you only can have one?

Aussieroo

Hmm, apart from your complaint about the weight I can't agree with your comments on the Sigma. NOw I shoot with the 100mm Canon Macro and love that lens. If I need a bit more distance to subject I drop a 2x's sigma converter on it and I have my own 200mm equivilant. However I regularly shoot with someone who does use the Sigma 180 and she gets stunning results. As has already been said f3.5 is not an issue. The widest she has shot is f4.5 and mostly f8-f11 witht he occasional f16. As far as fungi and low light is concerned, I agree it is hard to get the light you want to show the colours off. So you will need to concider an alternate light source like has been suggest an off camera flash. I know my shooting partner uses up to 3 flashes positioned as required to take some shots. Sometimes, she "paints the light" on areas using a torch. I guess each shot has its own requirements. However if you are on a tripod low light mostly isn't a problem especially if the fungi aren't moving Personally I would perservere with it and work around some of what you see as its short comings. However if you really feel the need of a change I would recomend the 100mm Canon Macro, I can't speak highly enough of it.

DRT-Maverick

SloYerRoll wrote:

It sounds like your using ambient light for macro photography? I've been studying macros for a while since my rig is in the mail. But I've had lighting and all the other components for a while.
When you say that mushrooms grow in the dark. Do you mean that the places your going don't have any ambient daylight? Most wildlife is exposed to sun at least for a short duration of time

Just trying to help you make the best out of what you think is a poor purchase.

Cheers,
-Jon

Exactly. I'm planning on doing a lot of hiking in the redwoods and the olympic rainforest again, and it's usually full shade and fog as an addition.

I should possibly look into a portable mini macro lighting set for outdoor objects.


As a headsup to most who suggested nice canon lenses and stuff, I'm shooting with pentax so I'm limited to a single macro lens designed by the company and third party macros like Sigma. So I'm trying to find myself a smaller one eventually.