Sigma 105 mm f/2,8 DG DN macro art and Leica CL

[Guytou]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Dopaco said:

Salut,
j'ai TL2 avec la cible 18-56 et en ce moment j'ai le même souci:

Leica 55-135 serait idéal, mais son prix élevé me fait reculer.

La macro sigma 105 mm F2.8 ou la macro Sigma 70 mm F2.8 avec des montures en L serait une autre bonne option. Je pense que le Sigma105mm. En raison de son poids et de sa taille, je ne vais pas aimer le Sigma 70 mm. qui est SANS stabilisateur, je pourrais l'aimer, à moins que vous ne montriez une meilleure alternative.

SIGMA 105mm F2.8 MACRO:
Poids ....: 736gr.
Longueur 127 mm x largeur 78 mm. (Sans pare-soleil)

SIGMA 70 mm F2.8 MACRO:
Poids ....: 515gr.
Longueur 106 mm x largeur 71 mm. (Sans pare-soleil)

Nous attendons des suggestions.

 

Hello Dopaco,

The Sigma 2.8 - 105 DG DN Macro Art is my favorite right now.

It is very recent (late 2020) and has really superlative image quality. Its minimum focus is 29.5 cm, or a working distance of approximately 15 cm from the front lens and the subject (1: 1 ratio).
The angle of view is smaller and becomes about 16 ° on the APS-C sensor (factor 1.5), or about 158 mm in 24 X 36. But the lens is still 105 mm and its characteristics do not not change.
 
On the other hand, it is heavier (715 g) and has no stabilization, which is not fundamental in macro.

The Sigma f 2.8 - 70 Macro Art is shorter (10.5cm) but when the front is extended to reach the 1: 1 ratio it measures 16cm !
Its minimum focus is reduced to 25.5 cm, but the working distance decreases to approximately 9 cm between the front lens and the subject. What is very little, the reduced lighting (drop shadow) and the approach of insects is really very difficult ...
Its angle of view corresponds to a 105 mm but the lens is still a 70 with its own characteristics, in particular a more present of fund and less blurry background than the real 105.

On the other hand, it is 200g lighter (weighs around 520g), has good optical quality but has no stabilization and its field of view is a bit wider (23 °) on the APS-C.

The 70 mm is a good focal length for portraits and its macro possibility is valid for inanimate objects but really very difficult with flying insects ...

Finally, the 70mm focal length is close to just 14mm from our 18-56mm zoom at its longest focal length. And it is always possible to put a windshield on our zoom (Canon clop up 250 D for example) but it does not have the flexibility of a real macro lens.

The choice of a macro lens Leica is not very large for our CL. Older Leica R lenses can however be fitted with adapter rings. There are advantages but also disadvantages ...
I am sure of one thing is that the Leica TL 60mm macro does not interest me for its focal length and the like, but especially because of its prohibitive price.

So you understand that I really like the Sigma 2.8 - 105 mm DG DN Macro Art and it is him that I will probably buy ...

 

Guytou

Edited February 4, 2021 by Guytou

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have 6 macro lenses I have used with my CL, 40mm f2.8 Makro Kilar (Canon FD mt), Nikon 55 f2.8 micro Nikor, 65mm f3.5 Elmar, 105mm f2.8 micro Nikor, 90-180 f4.5 Flat Field Vivitar (Canon FD), 100mm f4 Canon FD. All are good lenses, the two Nikors are the best. The 65 Elmar is OK but almost better as a 90mm walk around lens. The 40 and 55 have a very close working distance, the 55 doesn't get used much because it is an early Nikon AF lens and has an awful focusing ring. The 90-180 is a classic but is meh at infintity and has a very long focusing range, but is great at 180mm for a 1:2 mag, it also weighs a kilo so it is rather big on the CL. The 105 micro Nikor is excellent but a little big. I bought the Canon 100mm macro for my F1 but it is not as good as the Nikor on the CL even if it is smaller and lighter than the 105 Nikor. I have done macro work for years, my workflow gets thrown off with auto focus, I much prefer manual focus macros.

[Dopaco]

I am not an expert in taking photos with macro lenses, the ones I have taken have been with compact cameras and with TL2 + 18-56mm + Epro2, etc.

Working freehand with these 105mm lenses with the CL or TL2 will not be easy and due to the size and weight I think it will look quite aggressive on these small cameras.

Can anyone attach a photo with CL or TL with 105mm macro, sigma, Nikkor etc? ... (Both are similar in size and weight).

An intermediate between 70 and 105mm could be the solution or with a moderate TeleZom to cover the space left by the 18-56mm.

[wda]

I believe all of the discussed lenses are designed for use on full-frame cameras, hence fheir unbalanced appearance and handling on cropped frame cameras such as the TL and CL. Although I have two Sigma lenses, including the discussed 70 mm lens, their size and weight deters me from taking them far from home. However,  I do enjoy using them on my home patch. They perform superbly. 

[Guytou]

1 hour ago, wda said:

I believe all of the discussed lenses are designed for use on full-frame cameras, hence fheir unbalanced appearance and handling on cropped frame cameras such as the TL and CL. Although I have two Sigma lenses, including the discussed 70 mm lens, their size and weight deters me from taking them far from home. However,  I do enjoy using them on my home patch. They perform superbly. 

Thanks David for the feedback.

I see you have both Sigma 70 and 105 macro.
With more or less equal framing and diaphragms, is the background of a proxy photo significantly more blurred with the 105 than with the 70 on the Leica CL ?
Shooting at a distance of about 20 or 30 cm from the front lens.

This is probably what would make me decide between the angle of view of these two optics, and also obviously the weight ...

My close-up photos, especially insects, are not systematically at a 1: 1 ratio and therefore have too much and unpleasant background with this small additional distance.
I would point out that when I go into the woods to take macro photos, I only take the macro lens to be lighter ...

Thanks to you.

Guytou

Edited February 5, 2021 by Guytou

[wda]

3 hours ago, Guytou said:

Thanks David for the feedback.

I see you have both Sigma 70 and 105 macro.
With more or less equal framing and diaphragms, is the background of a proxy photo significantly more blurred with the 105 than with the 70 on the Leica CL ?
Shooting at a distance of about 20 or 30 cm from the front lens.

This is probably what would make me decide between the angle of view of these two optics, and also obviously the weight ...

My close-up photos, especially insects, are not systematically at a 1: 1 ratio and therefore have too much and unpleasant background with this small additional distance.
I would point out that when I go into the woods to take macro photos, I only take the macro lens to be lighter ...

Thanks to you.

Guytou

I need to correct one of your assumptions. My second Sigma lens is the excellent 100-400 mm zoom lens, which gives beneficial stand-off when approaching butterflies on flowers, for example. There is a thread dedicated to this fine tele-zoom lens which is well worth visiting.

[Guytou]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK David and thank you.
I had misinterpreted your previous answer : "...Although I have two Sigma lenses, including the discussed 70 mm lens..."

 

Guytou

[nicci78]

This is my macro experience with Leicas. 
Phase 1 : M10 +  Macro-Adapter-M + M lenses such as Summilux-M 50mm asph (excellent combo) and APO-Summicron-M 90mm. 
IQ is excellent but very cumbersome to use : dismount lens, mount adapter then mount lens again. 
Also quite weird to used with double focusing rings : on the lens and on the adapter. 

Phase 2 : CL + APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60mm   
Excellent IQ. Sole Leica 1:1 macro lens. Its main issue :  focus by wire makes manual focusing inconvenient

Phase 3 : CL + APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 100mm + APO-Extender-R 2x
Wonderful lens. Manual focusing is a joy. Proper distance and magnification scale. Love playing with 300mm equivalent macro. 
Sole issue : its weight. Still ok for tiny CL. But heavy nonetheless

Phase 4 : Q2 in macro mode at 75mm crop. 
Not pleasant to use at all. IQ is ok. But nothing to rave about. It is not a macro lens at all

Phase 5 : CL + Vario-Elmar-TL 18-56mm + Elpro 52. 
Just got the Elpro. So the jury is still out. It is way easier to use than Macro-Adapter-M. Just screw it in lieu of filter. And voilà. 
IQ seems excellent. It provides me 1:7 to 1:2 magnification. Waiting for spring time to be sure about its qualities. 

[Guytou]

48 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

This is my macro experience with Leicas. 
Phase 1 : M10 +  Macro-Adapter-M + M lenses such as Summilux-M 50mm asph (excellent combo) and APO-Summicron-M 90mm. 
IQ is excellent but very cumbersome to use : dismount lens, mount adapter then mount lens again. 
Also quite weird to used with double focusing rings : on the lens and on the adapter. 

Phase 2 : CL + APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60mm   
Excellent IQ. Sole Leica 1:1 macro lens. Its main issue :  focus by wire makes manual focusing inconvenient

Phase 3 : CL + APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 100mm + APO-Extender-R 2x
Wonderful lens. Manual focusing is a joy. Proper distance and magnification scale. Love playing with 300mm equivalent macro. 
Sole issue : its weight. Still ok for tiny CL. But heavy nonetheless

Phase 4 : Q2 in macro mode at 75mm crop. 
Not pleasant to use at all. IQ is ok. But nothing to rave about. It is not a macro lens at all

Phase 5 : CL + Vario-Elmar-TL 18-56mm + Elpro 52. 
Just got the Elpro. So the jury is still out. It is way easier to use than Macro-Adapter-M. Just screw it in lieu of filter. And voilà. 
IQ seems excellent. It provides me 1:7 to 1:2 magnification. Waiting for spring time to be sure about its qualities. 

We meet on a common subject Nicci ... 😉

I also tried the TL 18-56 with Canon 250 D (+ 4 D) close-up and Raynox 150 and 250 (+ 4.8 D and + 8 D) close-up.
The various magnifications are interesting and the image quality remains very good.

But it's less flexible than a real macro lens. For insects (butterflies and dragonflies), I would certainly go for the Sigma 105 Macro Art for the longer working distance.
 

Guytou

[nicci78]

The best way to know is to try the Sigma. Just order it online. If not happy, send it back within 14 days. 

 

[Guytou]

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

The best way to know is to try the Sigma. Just order it online. If not happy, send it back within 14 days. 

 

Hello Nicci,

I once had a Micro Nikkor 2.8 105 which I used with a Nikon F5. For insect photos the additional working distance was interesting, especially below the 1: 1 ratio (around 0.5).
I am half an hour from Toulouse and the 105 Sigma is available in the store where I usually use. I'll go see him by taking my camera.

But I think my decision is now made ... 😉

Guytou

[Dopaco]

Yo también estoy a punto de decidirme.

Lo que menos me gusta de este tipo de lentes es el peso y el precio.

Con el 18-56 con la ayuda de Epro y algún truco consigo macros moderadamente aceptables.

Ahora quiero probar esto.

 

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!

 

Totally prohibited by price........................................................3.000 €

Edited February 8, 2021 by Dopaco

[Gregm61]

The 135mm f3.4 APO is outstanding. I have one in my M262 outfit, sent the body and lens to DAG and had him adjust the lens cam to focus perfectly with my M camera.

I've never used it with my CL, having purchased the 55-135 for the CL, but maybe at some point I'll give it a spin on the CL. With the M it's super-sharp, but the 55-135 honestly is better on the CL since it focuses closer, autofocus and the zoom makes it way, way more versatile, and it's darn sharp throughout the zoom range.

The 135mm f3.4 on the M262 this past Saturday..

Edited February 9, 2021 by Gregm61

[Guytou]

8 hours ago, Dopaco said:

Yo también estoy a punto de decidirme.

Lo que menos me gusta de este tipo de lentes es el peso y el precio.

Con el 18-56 con la ayuda de Epro y algún truco consigo macros moderadamente aceptables.

Ahora quiero probar esto.

 

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!

Totally prohibited by price........................................................3.000 €

Thank you for the feedback Dopaco.

This Apo-Telyt 135 mm lens is certainly exceptional, but it is not what we are looking for (focus at only 1.5 m and ratio 1: 9).
I want a macro lens with a focal length of about 100mm for my CL, such as this Sigma 105 Macro Art with close focus and 1: 1 ratio.

Guytou

[Dopaco]

9 hours ago, Gregm61 said:

The 135mm f3.4 APO is outstanding. I have one in my M262 outfit, sent the body and lens to DAG and had him adjust the lens cam to focus perfectly with my M camera.

I've never used it with my CL, having purchased the 55-135 for the CL, but maybe at some point I'll give it a spin on the CL. With the M it's super-sharp, but the 55-135 honestly is better on the CL since it focuses closer, autofocus and the zoom makes it way, way more versatile, and it's darn sharp throughout the zoom range.

The 135mm f3.4 on the M262 this past Saturday..

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!

You are absolutely right, the 55-135 is a lens made for the L mount and on the CL and Tl2 cameras, it is the ideal complement to the 18-56.

The Apo Tele 135 f3.5 lens is very expensive although it is excellent, but on CL and TL2 you would have to drive it in manual mode. (many don't like it).

What I want to test is a lens (used and older in good condition) Elmar tele 135mm f4 that costs 3 or 4 times less than the new APO tele is worth, since both in CL and TL2, they will be driven in manual and the main origin of construction is the same.

I do not rule out that one day I will buy 55-135, if in the meantime there is no better alternative.

[Guytou]

I think the 55-135 is a very good lens for the TL. There are actually not too many choices available to us when it comes to mounting the Leica CL. The TL optics park is unfortunately a little thin ...

Same in macro: the TL 60 is an excellent macro lens but it has a very high price. I am therefore moving towards Sigma which also makes excellent products in L mount. 😉

 

Guytou

[nicci78]

What about Lumix S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS ?

It will be announced this month. 
around 700g. 1:2 macro capability. 
It has optical stabilisation. 
 

It is not a certified by Leica. So the price should be reasonable  

 

[Guytou]

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

What about Lumix S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS ?

It will be announced this month. 
around 700g. 1:2 macro capability. 
It has optical stabilisation. 
 

It is not a certified by Leica. So the price should be reasonable  

 

Optical perhaps interesting while waiting for the first quality tests.
But the dimensions are bulky especially for the Leica CL: weight 790 g, 148 mm long, diameter 84 mm (bigger than the height of the CL) ...

Guytou

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[nicci78]

I am ok with that. Because it is a telephoto lens.
at those focal lengths the lens have to be big. No matter the sensor size. 
790g is quite light for that. 
way lighter than Sigma 100-400mm with no macro ability. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by nicci78

[Guytou]

My CL has a new companion since this afternoon : a Sigma f.2.8/105 mm Macro Art. 😃
A superb macro lens that now wants to meet little insects and other flowers ...
 

Guytou

Edited February 11, 2021 by Guytou