Sigma 50mm macro lens reviews

I've been using my new Sigma 50mm macro lens for a couple of weeks now. It's giving great results, as seen in some of the pictures on this blog.

However, my journey into the world of macro photography has barely begun and I'm confident there are much better pictures ahead, waiting to be taken once I've learned more.

Today I thought I'd post links to some reviews of the Sigma 50mm macro lens. It was originally announced in 2004, as seen from this article on the Digital Photography Review site. However, they don't appear to have a subsequent review of the lens when released.

The first review is from the ePhotoZine website, and is dated January 2006. The one difference I've spotted is that the lens reviewed had a switch to move between auto-focus and manual focus. This is absent from my lens, probably because the same switch is built into my Sony A350 camera.

In general the review of the lens is positive, although it does pick out a couple of minor issues with slow auto-focus and the lack of a soft case. The former I've already encountered when trying to take pictures of bees on clover. The bees spend a few seconds on the clover head - plenty of time of a picture - but they're constantly moving as they forage for nectar. This seems to prevent the lens from achieving focus for long enough to shoot.

As for a soft case - I've long accepted that camera and lens manufacturers no longer supply any sort of cases with their products. Irritating, but it's a commercial reality that accessories push up produce prices.

The internet give a voice to ordinary people, particularly when it comes to product reviews. Amazon is a great source for these, and reviews for the Sigma lens are extremely positive. I've linked to the reviews for the Canon mount lens as there are more of these than for Sony.

Other reviews you may be interested in are dphotojournal and dyxum.

Today's macro thoughts

I''ve already made it clear that budget was a serious factor in my choice of macro lens.

However, it is possible to make a macro lens for yourself. The advantage is that it costs next to nothing. The disadvantage is that it takes some time and if you're not very practical, like me, it presents a major challenge.

However, it's good to know that it's possible. The full article about how to do it is on photocritic.org.

The article also raises some other issues for those of us getting into macro photography. Such as the shallow depth of field and sensitivity of focusing.

One issue I've already come up against, while experimenting, is that of using low shutter speeds outdoors. To improve depth of field I've been using smaller aperatures, which reduce the shutter speed. Unfortuntately because the subject of a macro photography is very small, or being captured in close-up, the slightest movement is magnified.

While I'm usually able to take hand-held photo at 1/15 speed, this is too slow for effective macro photography of plants in outdoor conditions where there is even a slight breeze. The result is a blurred picture.

I need to experiment using a tripod and working with a subject outdoors. That will allow me to identify the slowest shutter speed that's reasonable to use when photographing plants which are subject to gentle wind movement. It will be interesting to see the results.

What is macro photography?

Macro photography is about making small items appear larger. Detailed close-up pictures, with larger than life subject matter, such as insects or small flowers, are macro photographs.

We live in a world built on tiny details. Some of like to capture this details in photos for pleasure or for practical purposes, or both. It makes sense to photograph your jewellery or coin collection for insurance records. A large of number of stock photographs are taken at a macro level, using every day objects to create memorable illustrations used in magazines or on websites.

For great examples of macro photographs, visit the Closer and Closer group on Flickr.

The term macro is not rigidly defined. Traditionally macro lenses were defined by their level of magnification relative to the size of the 'film plane', that is the size of the negative or now the digial sensor. The ideal was regarded as 1:1, where the camera was capable of focusing on a subject so close to the lens that it was life-size on the film plan.

A good way of describing this is to think of large postage stamp, which is typically a similar size to a 35mm negative. A macro lens with 1:1 capability can focus on the stamp at a point where the image fills the entire view-finder, meaning it fills the negative or the digial sensor. When the negative is processed and turned into a 6"x4" print, the stamp will be massively magnified.

In recent years the term macro has come to mean the capability to focus on a subject close enough to appear life-size on a standard sized print. In real terms this represents a magnification level of only 1:4, which is much less than 1:1.

There's an incredible fascination with seeing the world through pictures captured with a macro lens. Tiny details erupt into view, almost invisible to the naked eye but exposed by the magnifying capabilities of the macro lens. For the newcomer it's a whole new realm of photographic opportunities.

Peas please

This is one of my first macro photographs, taken yesterday. I've just bought a macro lens for my Sony A350 - the Sigma 50mm F2.8 DG Macro - and I was keen to try it out.

The peas were freshly picked from my garden, the first of this summer's crop. I wanted to re-create other photos that I've seen of fresh fruit and vegetables, making them appear fresh and appetizing.

The process was simple enough. I washed the peas and put them into a bowl. Washing left tiny droplets of water on them, which helps to give that fresh appearance.

The camera was hand-held for the shot. Other details are:

- 1/25 shutter speed
- f4.0 aperture
- 100 ISO

Most of the settings were automatic, although I focused manually. I'm already sensing a preference for manual rather than autofocus.

I take photos in RAW and JPEG format, performing post-processing on the RAW file. In this case the peas were not actually as green as the picture suggests, so I altered the hue to improve the quality of the colour.

I'm quite pleased with the result. It's not as sharp as I'd like; my preference would be to have more in focus. I need to work on depth of field and learn the best combination of ISO and aperture to get better results.

The full picture is available at my Flickr account.