I am interested to know if anyone knows about the Sigma telephoto lens. I was origionally considering this lens for general telephoto wildlife photography use (in comparison to the Nikon 70-300 ED lens) but then had the idea that this one could also be used for macro. Has anyone used this lens for macro? Is it any good? Any underwater experience? Does it work as well for long distance subjects?

I was thinking that this might be a good compliment to my 60 mm macro lens and a cheap way around eventually getting the 100 mm macro (which is really expensive). Thoughts?

How much is it? How close does it focus at the "long end?" You should be able to find out this information from the Sigma website.

Cheers
James

Looks like 150 cm :shock: which is way more than the 35 cm of the 105 mm prime lens. I suppose this isn't really much of a macro lens then?

The lens costs about $200 from the bargin stores on the net.

With minimum focus distance of 37 inches in macro mode and 60 inches in non-macro mode, not a prudent choice for underwater. However, I do have this lens. I feel it's a great inexpensive lens for topside use, a poor mans telephoto. It's not a real fast lens, but tack sharp at about f/8 to f/11, if you get a good copy. You can get it for $177 from Delta International.com, http://www.deltainternational.com/store/Li...+super+macro+II.

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller_info...?seller_id=1832.

There's been moderate amount of discussion about this lens last couple or few months on the dpreview.com Rebel Forum: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1031.

Would everyone here like to see a "lens selection" article? I can do one of these for my next feature.

Cheers
James

Definately. I think there are lots of recent dSLR converts like myself in the market for the right suite of lenses to go along with our "value" SLRs.

Keep in mind the perspective that many like myself are moving to the digital rebel and D70 as alternatives to the top of the line prosumer cameras, so the ~$1000 body/basic lens combo + suite of entry level lenses is still a bit of a strech in the budget (e.g. I can't be adding lots of $1000+ lenses to my kit). Add even one of these top quality lenses and the whole set is easily 2.5 x the cost of a coolpix/sony/olympus prosumer in an ikelite housing--and the whole comparison is blown out of proportion.

Great idea James, is does get confusing for the newcomer and an article on this subject would clear the water to a lot of people !

Why not yesterday? :wink:
It will be very useful to all the new comers to the DSLR world.
I'm thinking to get the D70 and doing now a research of what lens to start with.

James.........too late!

I've got a D70 ordered and have been collecting lens as I wait on the camera.........60mm micro.......105mm micro........24-120mm for topside..........was planning on the 12-24mm, but I've heard a few negatives about this lens behind an aquatica port.........are you happy with your 12-24mm?

Any thoughts on the 12-24mm vs a 10.5mm or 14mm?

Karl

OK, lens article will be done by the end of the month.

I like the 12-24 behind my Aquatica port with the proper 15mm extension ring. I would DEFINITELY favor it over a 14mm. Not sure about the 10.5 as I haven't tried it. My order of liking is:

12-24 Nikkor
15 or 16mm fisheye
10.5 (really a separate category)
14mm

I don't like the 24-120VR - it's soft.