Macro+Telephoto?

[majestros]

Questions first then background.

Will the Sigma f/2.8 150mm OS macro with a 1.4x teleconverter provide me with IQ close to that of a nice 2.8 70-200mm telephoto? (so i can just buy the one lens, which is easier to sell to my wife) or do I really need to pick between macro OR telephoto?

If I get a 1.4x teleconverter, should I get the Sigma one or could I get equivalent IQ from the kenko pro300 (which would then allow it to be to used with a future purchase like a 100-400mm Canon). 

Background:

I am looking to make my first expensive lens purchase.  I am relatively new to photography (10 months) but have been taking many photos and maybe even ramping up. 

I love and tend to take mostly wildlife and macro shots.  I purchased a doublet close-up filter which is great for static elements (spiders in webs, etc) but would love a true macro lens that can still capture skittish bugs like dragonflies.  I would say 90% of all of  my photos are taken at 250mm on my 55-259 lens.  I would love to take sharper shots than my current lens allows. 

I have been leaning toward the Sigma 150mm OS macro for its image stabalization and long focal length for bugs and hoping that it could double for a telephoto lens particularly, if I add a 1.4x teleconverter.  (which, at 210mm would get me close to my current 250mm)

I rented this Sigma lens and the sigma 1.4TC to go with it for a weekend and was happy with my results handholding.

I will likely eventually get a long telephoto lens (I'm thinking probably the 100-400mm Canon), and my other expensive lens on the horizon will likely be one of the 15-85 or the 17-55 2.8 Canons. 

Thanks for any adivce or thoughts!

[TCampbell]

Canon is unique in that they make one particular lens... the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo.  See:  http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/mp_e_65mm_f_2_8_1_5x_macro_ph...

A "true" macro lens provides at least 1:1 image scale as measured on the sensor itself.  To use an example... a US penny measures roughly 19mm in diameter.  Your sensor on the T3i measures "roughly" 14mm x 21mm.  That means a penny at 1:1 scale could be focused by a true macro lens so closely that the image of it has to clip off just a bit of the top and bottom because the 19mm is taller than the 14mm height of the sensor... but it would fit within the 21mm width of the sensor.   Some zoom lenses include a macro range but it's not true 1:1 scale... often it's somewhere between 1:3 or 1:4 (1/3rd to 1/4ths scale).  BUT... a macro lens can also be used as a normal lens in that you can still focus all the way out to infinity -- so it's not just for close-up work.

The Canon MP-E 65mm is a dedicated macro-only lens.  Basically it's working distance is entirely in the macro range and you can't use it as a normal lens... but it does have the ability to focus so closely that it can represent 5x life size on the sensor.  Going back to our penny analogy... this lens focuses so closely that the date (the year) stamped on that penny would just barely fit in the image frame!

As for the Sigma & 1.4x combination...

Anytime you use a teleconverter you're generally going to get a reduction in image quality.  It would take many paragraphs to explain why, but to sum up... remember that no optics are 'perfect'.  When you use a teleconverter, you enlarge everything... including the flaws.   It's theoretically possible to make a teleconverter that attempts to improve upon those flaws (in the same way some people wear glasses) but this would require that the teleconverter be made for just one specific lens -- but teleconverters are general use. 

You can get closer using extension tubes.  These are very inexpensive.  These are rings which fit between the camera body and lens.  They have no optics in them (you can poke your finger right through the middle -- they're empty).  Their job is to move the lens farther away from the sensor (or film plane if you were using a film camera).  But doing this, the entire working range of the lens is reduced... meaning the lens can now focus on subjects which are closer than the minimum focus distance of the lens.  But it also means that you can no longer focus all the way out to "infinity" (when the extension tube is used.)  

They come in different lengths and they can be stacked.   They have electrical contacts on them so that they will pass the communication through between the camera and lens.

On the very high end, you can buy macro "bellows".  e.g.:  http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/automatic-bellows-for-canon-eo...  You can think of these as adjustable extension tubes (extension tubes come in fixed-length sizes but you can stack them.)  With the bellows, you can dial in any level of extension you want.

All of this extreme close-up creates a new problem.... depth of field is incredibly shallow.  To get around this, you can learn about "focus stacking".  The bellows I linked above have a built-in focus rail.  You mount the rail to the tripod instead of the camera.  The bellows hold the camera.  Once you dial in the macro using the bellows and then focus to some point on your subject, disable auto-focus, then snap a photo... turn slide the camera millimeter or two along the rail, snap another photo, and just keep repeating.  There are lots of programs that will then combine all those images to make a well-focused image of your subject.  It's also a built-in feature of Photoshop (and there are YouTube videos showing how to do "focus stacking".)

BTW, you don't need bellows or a focus rail to do focus stacking.  You can do it with just the lens.  I wrap a piece of masking tape around my focus ring and use a marker to mark the point of nearest focus and another mark at the point of farthest focus.  I then snap a photo while just barely turning the focus ring on the lens between each frame and continue until I've got a shot for each point in the range between those two marks.

[majestros]

Thanks for the reply Tim.  Unfortunately I have done my homework already and knew most of that stuff (I know about the awesome MP-E 65) and what true macro is (1:1), know about the loss of infinity focus with tubes or close-up filters, have watched Forrest Tanaka's awesome video on focus stacking, etc.  Sorry if saying that I liked to take macro shots added confusion.

I already have a Canon 500D close-up filter to approach macro and have rented the Sigma macro lens so I have an idea of its image quality.

I was interested in a dedicated macro lens because I want to be able to use it as a regular lens as well as a macro lens.  I liked the 150mm Sigma due to the combination of long focal length to get a longer working distance for skittish bugs and image stabilization (mostly for non-macro shots).

My questions were more specific (sorry if I used poor terminology that implied I needed more basic information). 

I was interested in a 1.4 TC as that would allow me to retain the full range of focus as well as AF with this particular lens.  I know people swear by 70-200 f/2.8 lenses so I really wanted to know if my 150 macro with a 1.4 TC would come close to the IQ of the aforementioned lens.  And second, if anyone thought the kenko 1.4x TC would be as good as the Sigma 1.4x TC with this Sigma lens and allow me more flexibility in the future.

[TCampbell]

Not all teleconverters / extenders are compatible with all lenses.  Apart from Canon's own extenders, the Kenko brand is probably the most popular.  But even Kenko provides the following warnings on their lens compatibility table:

1. DO NOT mount the unlisted lenses to Kenko TELEPLUS DGX.
2. When the unlisted lenses for example, from SIGMA or Tamron are used on the Kenko TELEPLUS DGX, it may cause the camera body, lenses or Kenko TELEPLUS DGX to malfunctions.

You can find those warnings in the caution section at the top of their table here:  

http://kenkoglobal.com/pdf/TELEPLUS_DGX_series_CompatibilityList.pdf

Canon has their own compatibility table for their extenders but these are only going to list Canon lenses. It's possible to use the Canon 1.4x extender with Canon's 180mm macro lens -- for example -- but I don't know what effect that has on the focusing range.

[ScottyP · Accepted solution]

Go here to see side by side images from the Sigma 150 vs. almost any other lens under the sun. This is The Digital Picture website, which I really like a lot.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=807&Camera=453&Sample=0&...

If the link does not work or if you want to play around with different lenses, just remember this: to see a lens WITH A TELECONVERTER just select a focal length longer than the max for the lens and if they have it, it will automatically show you the image with the TC mounted.

Acceptable image quality is in the eye of the beholder. Judge for yourself.

Good luck!

[majestros]

Thanks for this information!  It looks like the 70-200 is sharper (and the ~100mm macros look sharper as well).  I'm not sure if this is enough to make me re-consider, but it's definitely something to think about.  Also, the TC seems to have a relatively huge impact on IQ, bigger than I would have expected from what I have read so far. 

ScottyP wrote:
Go here to see side by side images from the Sigma 150 vs. almost any other lens under the sun. This is The Digital Picture website, which I really like a lot.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=807&Camera=453&Sample=0&...

If the link does not work or if you want to play around with different lenses, just remember this: to see a lens WITH A TELECONVERTER just select a focal length longer than the max for the lens and if they have it, it will automatically show you the image with the TC mounted.

Acceptable image quality is in the eye of the beholder. Judge for yourself.

Good luck!

---

[ScottyP]

As you already know, in addition to an Image quality loss and aperture reduction, the third downside for teleconverters is that they slow down your autofocus.

Considering that most macro lenses are already slow-focusers, you may want to research the AF speed too if you plan to shoot sports with this combo. I do not know if this is true for this particular lens.

[majestros]

While not sports photography, bird would be nice so the advice is appreciated.  I did notice a decreases in focus speed and more focus hunting when using the TC. 

Looks like I can't do what I had wanted to.  THe Sigma 150 can be good but maybe I should get a 100mm macro instead or get a telephoto lens first.  Oh well.

Need to decide what telephoto lens I'd like now . . .

ScottyP wrote:
As you already know, in addition to an Image quality loss and aperture reduction, the third downside for teleconverters is that they slow down your autofocus.

Considering that most macro lenses are already slow-focusers, you may want to research the AF speed too if you plan to shoot sports with this combo. I do not know if this is true for this particular lens.

---

[ebiggs1]

"While not sports photography, bird would be nice so the advice is appreciated."

Boy, another problem may come up. If you get the 150mm and the 1.4x tele converter, even on a crop body, you are at the low end of "bird" photography. Unless you can get pretty darn close.

[majestros]

Thanks ebiggs.  Yeah, I agree.  I think the TC may be out of the picture now.  I'm still trying to decide between going for the macro (as I still would really like to take macro shots) or something like the 100-400  or 300 f/4 canons for my first fancy purchase now.  Both the of the above telepohot lenses will get to 0.38x magnification hich isn;t terrible (but isn't macro obviously)

Thanks again all.