This is a follow up to my first query about photographing artwork. There was a consensus that I go with a macro lens: Is Canon T2i and kit lens good for shooting (2D) artwork?
I think I'm finally ready to purchase. I found this lens and I wonder if anyone has an opinion on it as a macro lens: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens
it has excellent reviews and is inexpensive. Or should I just get a standard non-zooming 50mm or 60mm macro lens?
And if you have any other thoughts in reguards to photograhing artwork please let me know.
Answer
Like any other zoom with the word "macro" in it's name, the Sigma is quite simply lying. No ifs, no buts. Misleading marketingspeak.
When you were recommended a "macro" lens it was implicitly meant a prime lens that can focus to 1:1 magnification, or at least 1:2. Canon has these in 60, 100 (2 flavours) and 180 mm focal lengths, a 1:2 50mm "compact macro" that requires an extra doo-dad to reach 1:1, while Tamron, Sigma and Tokina will be more than happy to sell one to you in 60, 90, 105 or 150mm varieties. At least; those are the ones I remember off the top of my head. All of the above are quite splendid optically, focal length being the main difference. The Canon ones that are equipped with USM focus motors are probably a bit better than the third-party ones for all-round use simply because they focus faster. While macros are purpose-built for macro photography they also tend to be extremely well-behaved in other ways, such as minimal distortion, good sharpness and very flat field of focus, which makes them excellent for reproduction and other non-macro purposes as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment