I have just purchased a Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 AF DG MACRO lens for my Nikon d3200. I know the advice is that a Nikon lens is better quality but price was an issue and i managed to get the lens for £80 in a sale.
for taking shots at a distance, the lens seems to be doing a good job (handy as there is a toddler here who decided the moment he first saw the camera that it was the most terrifying thing in the world)
the only problem i am having is that I wanted to take some close up macro shots but am completely unable to take a picture (press the button and nothing happens) unless I am standing a good distance away, to be honest I was having more luck with the 15-55mm lens which came with my camera as it will focus when I am at a short distance.
the shots I took with each of the lenses are just as sharp but i was hoping that with the new lens going up to 300mm that the image i would get would be like a cropped version of the one taken with the original lens.
i have tried auto focus and manual focus on both the camera and the lens to no avail.
my question is, have i bought the wrong type of lens for what i am trying to do (i am new to photography so made an uneducated guess) or does it sound like there is a fault with either me or the lens?
thank you
This lens isn't a true macro lens in that the reproduction ratio on this lens is 1:2 instead of 1:1 as on a true macro.
It seems you got a great deal on a zoom lens, but you might need to look into a true macro lens if you are interested in macro work.
It still has a maximum magnification of 1:2, not as good as a dedicated macro lens but still not bad.
Try setting it to 300mm (full zoom), flicking the switch to 'Macro' on the side, and photographing something 1-2 metres away. You should still get a reasonable close-up -- better than the 15-55mm does, anyway.
To do it properly you need a real macro lens -- unfortunately for beginners these are kinda hard to distinguish because manufacturers put MACRO on lenses that aren't actually proper macro lenses but are general-purpose lenses. A good clue is that a proper macro lens doesn't zoom -- it will be a fixed focal length like 50mm, 100mm, or 150mm (and say macro on it).
@mikehamm
thank you. if i'm honest, i didn't really look into the lens before buying. i was seduced by a sales assistant who claimed to know what they were talking about and gave the age old "1 day sale - last one in stock" speech.
I think i just assumed that the word MACRO on the box combined with the zoom would mean that I would be able to take these kind of shots with it (info inside the box varies between confusing to completely useless).
will start saving my pennies i think...
nonetheless, being able to take natural photo's today of an extremely camera shy toddler and a 6 year old who poses as soon as he sees one means that for me this lens is going to be invaluable.
thanks
I think definately try it as @abirkill Says as see... Try to do this in good light or on a stand. I worry that between the focal length and the aperture size you may get too slow a shutter speed for a sharp image indoors
All lenses have a minimum focal distance (how close you can get to the subject). This is true of macro lenses as well. I have 100mm and 30mm macro lenses, I can get closer with the 30mm than the 100mm.
You have a good lens, but 70mm refers to how close you can get to the subject an zoomed out 300mm is the closest you can get. Macro has a lot to do with the detail that the lens can provide also.
@chapjohn You have things a little confused in your post. The focal length of a lens has no relationship to how close you can get to a subject. A 70mm focal length doesn't mean that the lens can focus at an object 70mm away. The focal length historically refers to the distance a specific part inside the lens (the nodal point) is from the camera's sensor or film (the focal plane). This doesn't really have any effect on the average photographer other than how long the lens is physically, so these days a focal length is really just used as a standard way to compare how wide or telephoto a lens is.
This is completely separate from the minimum focal distance (MFD) of the lens, which determines how far the front of the lens can be from a subject and still be able to focus on it. This depends on the design of the lens.
It is perfectly possible to have a lens that can focus closer than the focal length of the lens -- for example, Canon's 65mm MP-E Macro lens can focus down to 41mm from the front of the lens. Similarly, it's perfectly possible to have a true macro lens that can't focus anywhere near that close, for example, Canon's 180mm Macro lens, which can't focus on anything closer than 480mm away.
A macro lens is also somewhat disjunct from the concept of how close a lens can focus. A macro lens is, traditionally, simply a lens that can provide at least a 1:1 magnification factor -- e.g. the size of the object in real life can be projected as an image onto the sensor/film at the same size or larger. Yes, a shorter focal length macro lens will typically be able to focus closer to the object, because that's the easiest way it can meet that 1:1 magnification factor, but particularly with macro lenses that can magnify larger than 1:1, that's by no means a fixed rule.
Apologies if that's what you meant, it just seemed a bit misleading in your post :)
@abirkill thank you for the advice, i did go out and try what you said. I don't think my images were much closer in - but it was definately a bonus that i could get comfortable at a distance rather than crouched down or on tiptoes waiting for a shot.
@toast I have yet to try the lens indoors as it has been unusually warm outside today. I suspect that you may be right as even outside i did notice a difference in speed compared to my other lens.
@chapjohn thank you. I am still interested in buying a proper macro lens at some point so i will take this into consideration when buying.
You may have to set the lens to 300mm before you can click the switch and get macro. You can also buy a filter to go on the lens and bring the action closer. This helps.
I have what may be the same lens. My original interest was in teh telephoto end of things, then I discovered it had a "macro" setting as well. I've gotten some decent shots in macro mode, but the hardest thing I had to learn was that I couldn't get as close as I wanted to. I also found out that for me at least, manual focus mode and a tripod were the best combo. trying to auto focus was frustrating, since what I wanted the focus on wasn't always exactly what the camera would give me.
I've taken it hiking a few times since it lets me get the hawk across the gorge and the lichen on the tree in front of me as well.
@elou well the speed difference you'll find i because of the minimum aperture of that lens at your focal lengths... i suspect if you're zooming in it'll be 5.6 which is probably 1 or 2 stops slower than your other lenes.
Camera shake will come into play with the zoom... below are the general rules of thumb cut / pasted from a forum for shutter speeds you want to use to avoid shake :
a) With NO image stabilisation
The approximate rules of thumb are:
Full frame cameras : min shutter speed = 1/focal_length
APS-C cameras : min shutter speed = 1/(focal_length*1.5)
Note that these are approximate rules and are heavily dependent on photographer technique, which is why they are called rules of thumb (my thumb and your thumb are not the same).
b) With image stabilisation.
Here the rule of thumb is to take the above calculation and increase the above shutter speeds by either two or three stops, depending on your confidence in the manufacturer.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
"The minimum focusing distance between 200 and 300mm is 95cm (37.4 inches). "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_70%E2%80%93300mm_f/4%E2%80%935.6_APO_DG_Macro_lens
thank you for clearing that up,
what type of lens am I looking for?
It seems you got a great deal on a zoom lens, but you might need to look into a true macro lens if you are interested in macro work.
Try setting it to 300mm (full zoom), flicking the switch to 'Macro' on the side, and photographing something 1-2 metres away. You should still get a reasonable close-up -- better than the 15-55mm does, anyway.
To do it properly you need a real macro lens -- unfortunately for beginners these are kinda hard to distinguish because manufacturers put MACRO on lenses that aren't actually proper macro lenses but are general-purpose lenses. A good clue is that a proper macro lens doesn't zoom -- it will be a fixed focal length like 50mm, 100mm, or 150mm (and say macro on it).
thank you. if i'm honest, i didn't really look into the lens before buying. i was seduced by a sales assistant who claimed to know what they were talking about and gave the age old "1 day sale - last one in stock" speech.
I think i just assumed that the word MACRO on the box combined with the zoom would mean that I would be able to take these kind of shots with it (info inside the box varies between confusing to completely useless).
will start saving my pennies i think...
nonetheless, being able to take natural photo's today of an extremely camera shy toddler and a 6 year old who poses as soon as he sees one means that for me this lens is going to be invaluable.
thanks
You have a good lens, but 70mm refers to how close you can get to the subject an zoomed out 300mm is the closest you can get. Macro has a lot to do with the detail that the lens can provide also.
This is completely separate from the minimum focal distance (MFD) of the lens, which determines how far the front of the lens can be from a subject and still be able to focus on it. This depends on the design of the lens.
It is perfectly possible to have a lens that can focus closer than the focal length of the lens -- for example, Canon's 65mm MP-E Macro lens can focus down to 41mm from the front of the lens. Similarly, it's perfectly possible to have a true macro lens that can't focus anywhere near that close, for example, Canon's 180mm Macro lens, which can't focus on anything closer than 480mm away.
A macro lens is also somewhat disjunct from the concept of how close a lens can focus. A macro lens is, traditionally, simply a lens that can provide at least a 1:1 magnification factor -- e.g. the size of the object in real life can be projected as an image onto the sensor/film at the same size or larger. Yes, a shorter focal length macro lens will typically be able to focus closer to the object, because that's the easiest way it can meet that 1:1 magnification factor, but particularly with macro lenses that can magnify larger than 1:1, that's by no means a fixed rule.
Apologies if that's what you meant, it just seemed a bit misleading in your post :)
@toast I have yet to try the lens indoors as it has been unusually warm outside today. I suspect that you may be right as even outside i did notice a difference in speed compared to my other lens.
@chapjohn thank you. I am still interested in buying a proper macro lens at some point so i will take this into consideration when buying.
I've taken it hiking a few times since it lets me get the hawk across the gorge and the lichen on the tree in front of me as well.
Camera shake will come into play with the zoom... below are the general rules of thumb cut / pasted from a forum for shutter speeds you want to use to avoid shake :
a) With NO image stabilisation
The approximate rules of thumb are:
Full frame cameras : min shutter speed = 1/focal_length
APS-C cameras : min shutter speed = 1/(focal_length*1.5)
Note that these are approximate rules and are heavily dependent on photographer technique, which is why they are called rules of thumb (my thumb and your thumb are not the same).
b) With image stabilisation.
Here the rule of thumb is to take the above calculation and increase the above shutter speeds by either two or three stops, depending on your confidence in the manufacturer.