Haha... Nicely said!

Once you tried the new sigma 35mm 1.4 for sure you feel like wanna change. well i did

She's okay what, i'd say one of the cutest today. too skinny also not nice la

NUS got a lot of snails wan. And tupai also got. Lu bawak lu mia D5100 and some gooding lens and shoot lohh. Pasti lu hepi.

So far I experienced before ahh, when shooting flowers that time got some NUS amois approach me and ask why am I taking photographs of the flowers.

Sigma no good?

Love the highlights!

Wow, seriously?

By the way bro,

Spending more money on photography is just you succumbing to your gear lust only (Not that I'm free of it lah, I'm upgrading to FX what )

But yeah, 400+ for an autofocusing macro set that can reach lifesize is one of the cheapest combo you can get.

I already used quite a few times before since silverfire has it before he jumped to canon

For a 2.5K lens it had better be good In fact it's better than both canon and nikon's own F/1.4 versions

This post has been edited by gunzerdude: Oct 13 2013, 10:12 PM

Its very good just too bad all the photos i've taken with the lens are bad

Bro, takdak reply my question ke?

Which Q? Lol sorry, I'm programming atm while browsing here, abit distracted

This post has been edited by gunzerdude: Oct 13 2013, 10:11 PM

So what seems to be the problem?

I am thinking of getting the Sigma 70-300 mm DG Macro lens.

If Sigma you say no good, I think I will give this a skip.

^ gunzerdude

Drillz of NUS amois takde lohh. But drillz of flowers ada kat sini.







Taken using Nikon Coolpix P7100.

The Sigma 35 1.4 Art? One of the best lens I used.


If I remember correctly, all photos below shot wide open.


Sharpened, 100% cropped


Cropped too

Normally macro lenses have the words macro included with their specifications, but not all lenses are true macro ones lah.

Most macro lenses are primes, rarely are there zoom designs that can reach true macro ranges.

True macro lenses can reach lifesize magnification AKA 1:1. Just look for this denomination if you're looking for a true macro lens.

But really, for starters, just stick to the 50mm+extension can d.

You can really get good answers for most questions with just a quick google search. All zoom lenses can't achieve high magnification even with Macro label on it (except the Canon 24-70 F4L which can achieve 0.72x magnification compared to 1:1 magnification on true macro lenses). Generally, a macro lens will have a fixed focal length, bright f2.8 aperture. There are quite a lot of choices for good macro lenses actually, the Tamron SP 90mm macro is one of the best value macro lens, costing around 1k brand new though. Nikon produces the 105mm VR but the price is really high (2-3k i think?). These lenses are made for Full Frame camera, the DX macro lenses generally would be 40mm-60mm depending on manufacture.

Can name a few of the "true" macro lens? Nikon got?

Here got so many sifus, why wanna trouble Uncle Google?

So in other words, any primes can be considered macro lens if their apertures are big? Sounds easy enough...

Google can give you instant answer la instead of waiting for us to do it

LOL, no, big apertures don't represent macro lenses.

Like I said, just look for 1:1 magnification, this alone will be enough to tell you that the lens is a true macro

For examples:

Tamron AF 60mm f/2.0 SP DI II LD IF 1:1 Macro Lens

Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro Lens

Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G (Nikon's 1:1 representation is the word "MICRO")

wah, how can you think like that? people are helping just because they are kind, don't ever take that for granted.

A macro lens should have big aperture.
A lens with big aperture doesn't mean it is macro lens.

Understand?