Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

Recent owner of a Leica CL + 18 mm + zoom 18-56, I am considering purchasing a macro lens.

The TL 60mm looks great to me, except for a few things mentioned here and there about its use, but above all it's its high price point that stops me dead.

I looked towards Sigma, in particular the 70mm f / 2.8 DG Macro Art and especially the new 105mm f / 2.8 DG DN Macro Art which would have pleased me more, especially with regard to its focal length for the macro and above all its superb image quality.

But with the disadvantage of a significantly more weight of 720 g and its length of 13.5 cm.

What do you think and have you ever used this lens with the CL?


Thank you in advance for your feedback.

 

Guytou

Link to post
Share on other sites

I faced this dilemma and opted for the 70 mm lens which is effectively 105 mm on the CL. The 70 mm is a  wonderful lens in handling and performance and is possibly more useful in its dual role as a medium telephoto for portraiture and landscape detail.  Its only downside is its bulk and weight which I accept for its macro role. It might not do much travelling unless macro pictures are a main reason for travel. It is exceptional value for money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks David for your answer.
I obviously thought of the Sigma 70mm, but I don't like its external focusing system too much, wrongly maybe...

Moreover, when fully deployed, it's only 2mm shorter than the 105.
The 105 also turns into a small 157mm tele on the CL, while the 70 isn't far from the 56mm zoom.
This of course to the detriment of the higher weight of 145 g compared to the 70.


The price difference is not too much of a problem. I am thinking especially of the overall size compared to the small size of the CL.

Guytou

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My Sigma  105mm f / 2.8 DG DN Macro Art lens and 2x extender have just arrived and it all fits  the CL,

with the upgraded software. It is heavy but feels OK in use.

I am off on holidays on Thursday so will use it more than just around the house.

My alternative light weight accessory for macro has been the ELPRO and it still lives in my camera bag.

It was a good buy.

Cheers

Philip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Merci pour votre réponse Philippe .

J'hésite encore mais j'aime plus le 105, surtout pour la différence de focale par rapport au 70.
Je suis conscient du poids supplémentaire et certainement de la dimension par rapport au CL, mais j'attends avec impatience vos réflexions et observations sur son utilisation.

Merci d'avance.

Guytou

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 85% of our members: ;)

Quote

Thank you for your response Philippe.

I still hesitate but I like the 105 more, especially for the difference in focal length compared to the 70.
I am aware of the added weight and certainly the bulk on the CL, but I look forward to your thoughts and observations on its use.

Thank you in advance.

Guytou

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That don't speak French... I think you have some kind of auto-translate installed, as I wrote in English, you post and quote in French.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I wrote in French ... 😪


I therefore resume my text:

Thanks for your response Philip.

I still hesitate but I think I prefer the 105, especially for the difference in focal length compared to the 70.
I am aware of the extra weight and certainly the dimension compared to that of the CL, but I look forward to your thoughts on using it.

Thank you in advance.

Guytou

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a 105 micro Nikkor f2.8 AiS with my CL, the lens is heavy but really sings on the CL. I have used a similar lens off and on in my medical photography work and it is a grest lens. I was looking at a Leica 100 macro R, but found the Nikon for $89, it did require a cleaning, another $100, so a good lens for cheap.

The main reason for multiple macros is working distance, I find the 100/105mm to be prefect for carrying around work, 60 I find a little short for close macro, especially for moving subjects.  If you get shorter than 60mm working at 1:2 or 1:1 magnification you start to get lighting issues. I was doing a large amount of 1:1 work with micro medical instruments, and found the 55 Nikkor I had would not allow fexibliity with lighting, the lens is set back in the lens. Anyway I would go for the 105 Sigma unless it is less sharp than the 60. I do highly recommend the 105 Nikkor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your message tommonego😉

On the CL and its APS-C sensor, the equivalent focal length of 105mm becomes 157mm (X 1,5).
I would also like this 105mm focal length for the small additional focus distance it provides. This is not negligible to avoid scaring small insects.

We must of course accept the additional weight and bulk of this lens compared to a 60/70 mm macro.

This Sigma 105 DG DN Macro Art seems to have many qualities ...


Guytou

Edited by Guytou
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 21 Stunden schrieb Guytou:

Thank you for your message tommonego😉

On the CL and its APS-C sensor, the equivalent focal length of 105mm becomes 157mm (X 1,5).
I would also like this 105mm focal length for the small additional focus distance it provides. This is not negligible to avoid scaring small insects.

We must of course accept the additional weight and bulk of this lens compared to a 60/70 mm macro.

This Sigma 105 DG DN Macro Art seems to have many qualities ...


Guytou

Yes the nominal focal length will be 157mm, but it will still operate like a 105mm macro. At 1:2 magnification its distance to subject will be 210mm at 1:1 (with an extension tube) focal distance will be 105mm. A 70mm would be 1:2 - 140mm and 1:1 70mm. This is to assume a pure macro lens, often now with moving elements the lenses change their focal length the closer they focus. This big guy was at about 1:3 to 1:2 magnification, luckily they are not agressive. CL with 105 micro Nikkor.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for this feedback tommonego.

But I am still very hesitant between this 105 mm and the 70 mm Macro Art.
I especially fear the size and weight of the 105 mm...

I can't find some shooting elements. Including the focusing distance between the front lens and the subject for a magnification of around 1: 2 or even 1: 3 with the Sigma 70mm.


It is interesting to know it for my APS-C because I do not know whether to multiply by the factor 1.5 the distances indicated on the 70 mm (data for an FF). Which would increase this focusing distance a little ...

 

Guytou

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 23 Stunden schrieb Guytou:

Thank you very much for this feedback tommonego.

But I am still very hesitant between this 105 mm and the 70 mm Macro Art.
I especially fear the size and weight of the 105 mm...

I can't find some shooting elements. Including the focusing distance between the front lens and the subject for a magnification of around 1: 2 or even 1: 3 with the Sigma 70mm.


It is interesting to know it for my APS-C because I do not know whether to multiply by the factor 1.5 the distances indicated on the 70 mm (data for an FF). Which would increase this focusing distance a little ...

 

Guytou

The 70mm adjusted field of view would be that of a 105mm, but it would still behave as a 70mm, the focusing distance at 1:2 would be 140mm and 1:1 70mm. I am not 100% sure about the distance at 1:3, I would imagine approximately 200mm. If you are comparing DOF, when you start talking about magnification, that is what controls DOF, so all lenses at a 1:2 magnification would have the same DOF, same with 1:3 and 1:1. Again this depends on a model lens that doesn't change focal length with close focusing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Il y a 2 heures, tommonego@gmail.com a déclaré:

Le champ de vision ajusté de 70 mm serait celui d'un 105 mm, mais il se comporterait toujours comme un 70 mm, la distance de mise au point à 1: 2 serait de 140 mm et 1: 1 de 70 mm. Je ne suis pas sûr à 100% de la distance à 1: 3, j'imagine environ 200 mm. Si vous comparez DOF, lorsque vous commencez à parler de grossissement, c'est ce qui contrôle le DOF, donc tous les objectifs à un grossissement de 1: 2 était le même DOF, de même avec 1: 3 et 1: 1. Encore une fois, cela dépend d'un modèle d'objectif qui ne change pas de distance focale avec une mise au point rapprochée. 

Merci  tommonego .

Je vais repenser à tout cela ...
 

Guytou

Edited by Guytou
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2021 at 4:06 PM, tommonego@gmail.com said:

The 70mm adjusted field of view would be that of a 105mm, but it would still behave as a 70mm, the focusing distance at 1:2 would be 140mm and 1:1 70mm. I am not 100% sure about the distance at 1:3, I would imagine approximately 200mm. If you are comparing DOF, when you start talking about magnification, that is what controls DOF, so all lenses at a 1:2 magnification would have the same DOF, same with 1:3 and 1:1. Again this depends on a model lens that doesn't change focal length with close focusing. 

It does not change the focal length but the angle of view is different and unrelated to the subject distance. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2021 at 4:07 PM, Guytou said:

Hello,

Recent owner of a Leica CL + 18 mm + zoom 18-56, I am considering purchasing a macro lens.

The TL 60mm looks great to me, except for a few things mentioned here and there about its use, but above all it's its high price point that stops me dead.

I looked towards Sigma, in particular the 70mm f / 2.8 DG Macro Art and especially the new 105mm f / 2.8 DG DN Macro Art which would have pleased me more, especially with regard to its focal length for the macro and above all its superb image quality.

But with the disadvantage of a significantly more weight of 720 g and its length of 13.5 cm.

What do you think and have you ever used this lens with the CL?


Thank you in advance for your feedback.

 

Guytou

Hi there:
I have TL2 with the 18-56 target and right now I have the same concern:

Leica 55-135 would be ideal, but its high price set me back.

The macro sigma 105mm F2.8 or the macro Sigma 70mm F2.8 with L mounts would be another good option. I think the Sigma105mm. Because of its weight and size, I'm not going to like the Sigma 70mm. which is WITHOUT stabilizer, I might like it, unless you show a better alternative.

SIGMA 105mm F2.8 MACRO:
Weight ....: 736gr.
Length 127mm x 78mm width. (Without sunshade)

SIGMA 70 mm F2.8 MACRO:
Weight ....: 515gr.
Length 106 mm x 71 mm width. (Without sunshade)

We await suggestions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...