ColinW
* Click *
Just picked up one of these on Oboy (OM mount of course 
) and wondered if anybody has had any experience of them. It's a 1:1 but I can't find much information on it.
I have a Sigma 28-70 which I love, so I'm looking forward to this, but any information in the meantime would be apprecaited.
Cheers.
) and wondered if anybody has had any experience of them. It's a 1:1 but I can't find much information on it. I have a Sigma 28-70 which I love, so I'm looking forward to this, but any information in the meantime would be apprecaited.
Cheers.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have the autofocus version, an older one made in the mid-1990's for Nikon mount. I think the optical formula is the same as yours. I am very happy with it. I have never compared it to any of the Olympus or Nikon macros, but I have done a lot of closeup work with it and find it to be an extremely sharp lens. I don't have a Nikon macro, just the Sigma, though I do have the Olympus 50mm f2 macro. I have never actually used the oly macro for macro work! Most of my macro work I shoot digital with my Nikon D70.
ColinW
* Click *
Chris,
Thanks for the reply. Up until now I've used a Vivitar 2X macro focussing convertor for macro work, and have never owned a macro lens. This one was a good price and now I can't wait. Thanks again.
Thanks for the reply. Up until now I've used a Vivitar 2X macro focussing convertor for macro work, and have never owned a macro lens. This one was a good price and now I can't wait. Thanks again.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I think you'll like the macro lens much better than the teleconverter. Here's a couple of things I have shot with my Sigma.
ColinW
* Click *
Thanks again Chris; beautiful photos's and really close too. I love the butterfly and snake ones as this'll be the sort of thing I'll want to do (we have two snakes...and three cats...no butterflies yet ). I hope mine's turn out half as good as your's, although I'm suprised they're in colour as your site seems to concentrate on B & W, and of course they're all impressive as well.
). I hope mine's turn out half as good as your's, although I'm suprised they're in colour as your site seems to concentrate on B & W, and of course they're all impressive as well.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Thanks again Chris; beautiful photos's and really close too. I love the butterfly and snake ones as this'll be the sort of thing I'll want to do (we have two snakes...and three cats...no butterflies yet
I thought you'd enjoy seeing some of the macros I've done with the lens. I use my D70 as my 'snapshot' camera, and these were all quick snapshots. The snake is a Garter Snake, a very common species in the USA. I found him in my front yard a few yrs ago and wanted to photograph him to show my son because this was the BIGGEST one I have ever seen. Garters usually get to be about half a meter long; this one was over a meter.
The butterfly was one my son and I raised a couple years ago. After they came out of their cocoons, we kept them for a few days then let them go. I photographed them in the yard while they landed on the lilacs.
When I shoot color for my serious work I use 120 color transparency film, or my Kodak 14n digital. I still like black & white best though.
Don't your cats go after the snakes? LOL My grandfather has an evil little grey cat who has killed two rattlesnakes and numerous non-poisonous snakes over the years. One time she came into his house and dropped a rattler's head on the floor! The cat is 17 yrs old and still killing. I went to visit grandpa a few days ago and found a headless bird laying in his yard.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
The macro lenses of most SLR MF brands are not anymore expensive, as they used to be, so I would rather use a Canon 50mm/3.5 or Nikkor 50mm/3.5 of Pentax 50mm/4 than an off brand lens.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've had mine for 13 years, and back then the Nikon 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor was $600 and the Sigma was $250 (new prices, not used). For a college student with no money that was a big deal.
You're right that used manual focus macros are cheap now. The OP is using Olympus and the excellent 50/3.5 Olympus macro is about $150 used. It does not, however, go to 1:1 and the Sigma does. The sigma really is a good lens. I'm a perfectionist and I like it. I have the more costly Olympus 50/2 macro but I bought it for its high sharpness for normal shooting and have never done macro with it. I'll have to try it sometime.
Most of my macro shots are just snapshots of bugs and such that I do for my son. He thinks bugs are cool, and we use my Nikon digital for that so he can have them right away. That's why I have never done macro with my Olympus system.
ColinW
* Click *
Chris,
Two of the cats keep a wide berth of the snakes, the other one we have to watch like a hawk. 12 years old and still a demon in a fur coat! We once had a cat that would take on the world; heard a banging from the kitchen one day, went through and it was trying to drag a LARGE seagull through the cat flap! Yet it was a total baby with my wife.
Raid,
I agree that house lenses are pretty cheap these days, but as I've always used the Vivitar 2xMFC to get 1:1, I didn't know if I should bother with the Oly's as they are only 1:2. The reasons I went for the Sigma are: its 1:1; it's f2.8 (compared to f3.5 for the 'cheaper' Oly, and only one step darker than the, at times, outragously priced f2) and I got it for just £16 ($32 approx).
Mmmm, now I'm thinking of the Sigma with the Vivitar attached.
Two of the cats keep a wide berth of the snakes, the other one we have to watch like a hawk. 12 years old and still a demon in a fur coat! We once had a cat that would take on the world; heard a banging from the kitchen one day, went through and it was trying to drag a LARGE seagull through the cat flap!
Yet it was a total baby with my wife.Raid,
I agree that house lenses are pretty cheap these days, but as I've always used the Vivitar 2xMFC to get 1:1, I didn't know if I should bother with the Oly's as they are only 1:2. The reasons I went for the Sigma are: its 1:1; it's f2.8 (compared to f3.5 for the 'cheaper' Oly, and only one step darker than the, at times, outragously priced f2) and I got it for just £16 ($32 approx).
Mmmm, now I'm thinking of the Sigma with the Vivitar attached.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
The Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 Macro and the very similar Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 Macro lens is/are probably the best macro lenses ever made, bar none, except for maybe the 100mm Kinoptik or Kern Macro Switars.
I wouldn't call Sigma an "off brand", they make some extremely high quality lenses.
I wouldn't call Sigma an "off brand", they make some extremely high quality lenses.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have two Tamron 90/2.5 macro lenses because they are that good.
pvdhaar
Peter
I had a 50/2.8 Sigma macro in Nikon AF mount in the mid ninetees. The AF gearing was slow and noisy, but then again, on a Nikon F601 you wouldn't notice cause you had to wear earplugs anyway..
Optically it was a very good lens, certainly a match for the 90/2.8 Tamron I have now.
Optically it was a very good lens, certainly a match for the 90/2.8 Tamron I have now.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
LOL, yeah my Sigma AF-50 macro is noisy and slow to focus automatically. I rarely use AF with it though, manual focus is actually easier for macro in my opinion.
ColinW
* Click *
I got my first photos with this lens back. The actual prints are a lot sharper and clearer. I have a really poor scanner, either that or I'm poor at scanning, that seems to love blur. That's why I rarely post photos on the forum. But I must say that I am very happy with this lens.
