Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro

[spra4321]

Has anyone have/tried the new Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro?

I want to get a wider than my 28-70mm and the macro ability is key for my jewelry photographing. Just wondering if anyone has any options.

Thanks!

[SpecialK]

Hi:

I can't speak for the macro version, sorry. However, the non-macro version is pretty nice, and I can get about 5 keyboard keys wide into it at the closest distance of about 11 in. The macro version will get down to 1:3 from about 7.6in. Should be a good one if you can find it. Only the Canon mount is listed at Sigma4Less. There is a SLD ELD version listed at Amazon but I don't know the differences.

[nqjudo]

you could also look at the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro or a true 1:1 macro lens. It seems like you would photograph some pretty small stuff dealing with jewelry.

[jcon]

Like SpecialK said, the older version works great. I use to own the older version and it was on my D50 95% of the time.

If your looking for macro, you may want to look into a true macro lens.

[coldrain]

The new 18-50 EX DC Macro is quite an improvement over the older version (the one without "macro" in its name).
The optics have been imporved, improving its CA performance.
The Macro mode is a nice addition, whether or not it is enough for you is for you to decide. An 1:1 dedicated macro lens has the ability to make an object of about 1 inch to fill the frame width, if you do not get THAT close, the Sigma may well get you by.

[AdamW]

I've got it. I really like it. Here's an example:

[spra4321]

Thanks for the feedback!

Adam, how close were you when you took that photo? (ADORABLE, by the way!) Do you have any comments on its 1:3 macro ability vs the 1:1?

My shots are generally of a finished piece of jewelry, not tiny, individual beads so I think 1:3 would be okay, but it sounds like I definitetly need to try this one out or see more photos of what it takes before buying.

[AdamW]

I think I was a couple of feet away. What I like best is the constant f/2.8, which makes it nice for indoor low-light shots like that one of my newest cousin.

A 1:3 macro is not bad, but 1:1 is more useful. If you want a lens for product shots, I'd really consider a 100mm 1:1 macro. It will be sharper and they're really a huge amount of fun. And the price isn't much different.

[michaelb]

The Sigma 17-70 will do "macro" to 1:2.3 - here are a couple of recent examples:

[TeddTucker]

this lens was lent to me today and i'm kinda unfamiliar with the 1:3 ratio. can someone please explain it to me. Does it mean u can make something 3 x bigger?

[TheWengler]

this lens was lent to me today and i'm kinda unfamiliar with the 1:3 ratio. can someone please explain it to me. Does it mean u can make something 3 x bigger?

I believe it means that if you're taking a picture of something the same size as the sensor then at most it will only fill 1/3 of the frame.

[jonnahalf80]

I have it. A few times, I felt the 1:3 is too little, not letting me get as close as I wanted. Still, 20cm is pretty good.

I like the quality of the images, it focuses damn fast, and is considerably quiet. I have the Canon 70-300 which moans very high when focusing, despite that USM tag which should have meant otherwise.