Macro Rings and Macro Lenses

[ComicDom1]

I am looking into getting a Macro Ring and Macro lens. My first instinct is to go with the Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro, but I have seen others rave about the Sigma 50mm Macro. My question is really for those who have used the Sigma or another brand. When I called 1-800-OK Canon, I was told that the MR-14EX Macro Flash Ring fits into the 50mm 2.5 Macro lens and other Macros that Canon makes. Does it mount on Sigma the same way or can you use the MR-14EX Canon ring flash on other brands of lenses? If so how does it mount or how do you mount it.

Thanks

Jason

[gparr]

I recently purchased a Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro and couldn't be happier with it. Below is an example of what I've shot recently using the lens and a Sigma flash, off camera. More train shots and a couple of crocus shots (handheld, available light) in my gallery. Can't help with the flash ring question.
Gary

[jliechty]

The Canon 50mm f/2.5 "Macro" isn't really a true macro. By the time you buy the "lifesize extender" or whatever they call it, you might as well have spent a tiny bit more to have purchased the 100mm f/2.8 macro. OTOH, Sigma and Tamron both make good macros around the 100mm focal length (105mm and 90mm, respectively), but I have no idea if or how the Canon ringlights or twinlights would attach.

[dbevis]

Originally Posted by jliechty

The Canon 50mm f/2.5 "Macro" isn't really a true macro. By the time you buy the "lifesize extender" or whatever they call it, you might as well have spent a tiny bit more to have purchased the 100mm f/2.8 macro. OTOH, Sigma and Tamron both make good macros around the 100mm focal length (105mm and 90mm, respectively), but I have no idea if or how the Canon ringlights or twinlights would attach.

The 100 macro is exceptionally flat - there's no discernable pincushioning or other abberations at the edges (at least with the 1.6x FOV crop). I compared with the 24-70 in it's "macro" mode and the difference is very apparent. Might be less of an issue with the 50 as it's a fixed-length also.

[ComicDom1]

I can appreciate everything everyone has posted so far. Since a few of you own Macro lenses, Sigma, Canon 100mm Ect, can you tell me how the ring flash attaches to it? That the information I am really after.

Jason

[dbevis]

Originally Posted by ComicDom1

I can appreciate everything everyone has posted so far. Since a few of you own Macro lenses, Sigma, Canon 100mm Ect, can you tell me how the ring flash attaches to it? That the information I am really after.

Jason

I don't have one myself, but I know that it attaches to the front of the lens the way a filter would. There is some amount of adjustment but it's "filter" size is 58mm (same as that of a 100/2.8 macro).

don

[Richard Tisor]

I will add one difference that depend on your shooting, may or may not be significant...

The Canon 100 2.8 is an internal focus, while the Sigma 105 is not.

I don't know enough yet to know if this is a big problem, but from the reading I did tring to decide, others felt it was.

EDIT: After re-reading the above and the use of a ring light, I would imagine fixed length would be an issue. If the Sigma extended out, but the ring mount flash where attached to the main body of the lens, I would imagine there could be a chance of shadow cast.

[gparr]

The Sigma lens extends when focusing. Overall length goes from 3 3/4 in. to 5 3/4 at maximum extension. The extending "snoot" does not rotate when extending, so a ringlight attached to the end like a filter would not rotate, either.
Gary

[MatsP]

Originally Posted by ComicDom1

I can appreciate everything everyone has posted so far. Since a few of you own Macro lenses, Sigma, Canon 100mm Ect, can you tell me how the ring flash attaches to it? That the information I am really after.

Jason

Long time after the original post...

I've got the original 100mm/2.8 Macro (non-USM version). I haven't got a ring-flash, but I believe it attaches to the grove at the front of the lense. If you go to the Canon web-site, it will show up at the front of the lens. It's clearly there for a good reason, and it's only there on the ring-flash able lenses.

Hope this helps somehow. I've taken lots of photos with my Macro lens, and I can't complain about anything (other than photographer error). It makes a good portrait lens. And from all that I understand, the USM version is better in several aspects, including the fact that it doesn't grow at the front when you get close to things (which is important because it prevents you from scaring the poor critter that sits there waiting to fly off...). Being silent is probably not a bad thing either.

--
Mats

[jliechty]

One other thing, since this thread was recently bumped...

If you get an internal focus macro lens, supposedly you don't loose nearly as much light when focused down to 1:1 as you would with a normally focusing lens. Whether you use a non-IF lens or a non-macro lens with extension (bellows, tubes, or otherwise), you'll lose light: approximately 1 stop at half life-size, and 2 stops at life size.

The only "disadvantage" of an internal focus lens is that the focal length shortens as you focus it closer; hence, a 200mm IF lens will have a shorter working distance at 1:1 than a 200mm non-IF lens. However, the 200mm non-IF lens would require 200mm of extension to reach 1:1, which would obviously be a bit of a challenge to work with in the field, especially if one prefers to do one's macro photography handheld (as I can assume most of you here do).