 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2005Macro Photography
Hi all I'm new to the world of SLR's and such, my first digital camera is now about 5 years old, and has died, so I want to replace it! however I keep insects and invertebrates as a hobby, and would love to take some pictures of them, larger than life so to speak.. I believe this is called Macro Photography now I am hoping to buy a Canon EOS 350 D camera and wondered what would be the best macro lens? (I know this is opinions as much as fact) however I also want the camera to be usable for "normal" pictures too (hence deciding an SLR may well be my best bet! Anyone able to recommend best lens and good sites to buy from (I'm in the UK) Thanks Lost > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Anyone able to recommend best lens and good sites to buy from (I'm in the > UK) Last time this came up, it was mentioned that a longer macro lens is best for bugs (like 100mm) so you don't have to get too close & scare them away. Ideally you work with full sun or flash to use higher number f/stop to overcome the depth of field problems with macro so an expensive 'fast' (low f/stop number capable) lens is not necessarily a requirement. A true macro lens can also be used for portraits & a fast 100mm lens would be great for that if you have that need. Zoom macros seem to be frowned apon. The kit lens is a good thing to have as well for general use wide angle zoom for such a good price unless you plan to spend a bundle on a better zoom in that range. So then the question is what can you afford in a fixed +-100mm macro after the kit. > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > also want the camera to be usable for "normal" pictures too (hence deciding > an SLR may well be my best bet! A lot of great insect photos are made with "zlr" cameras, that is lenses that don't detach from the body, so don't exclude that. A "true" macro is considered one that makes at least a 1:2 reproduction on film. That is to say, at closest focus, an object 10mm across will render a 5mm image on the sensor. The usual standard is at least 1:1, that is to say a 10mm object renders a 10mm image on the sensor at closest focus. For a 350D, I would suggest that the 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (Canon) would be a great choice as well as being a mid telephoto lens for non macro work. The 90mm f/2.8 macro from Tamron is another excellent alternative. (They are both about the same price at a place like B&H in New York.) Sigma also have a 105mm f/2.8 macro, but I've never heard anything good (or particularly bad) about it. It comes in at respectable 4.1/5.0 at photodo, but that is sub-par regarding 100mm macros. I would pick the Tamron or Canon over this lens. There are longer macros such as the Sigma 180 f/3.5 which gives you more room to get light in on the subject, but this might be a bit extreme for your use and will result in less DOF (and a 1/2 stop less light). Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > The 90mm f/2.8 macro from Tamron is another excellent > alternative. One nice thing about the Tamron is that it also makes an excellent portrait lens, although not so nice in the APS-sized digital world as in the film world because of the narrower FoV. There's also a longer (and newer) Tamron 180 f/3.5 which gives a bit more working room for touchy subjects like live insects. >> The 90mm f/2.8 macro from Tamron is another excellent alternative. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > newer) Tamron 180 f/3.5 which gives a bit more working room for touchy > subjects like live insects. I've always wondered if the strong "portrait" attribute of the Tamron 90mm macro applies to the the f/2.5 version, and not at all to the f/2.8 version. The old f/2.5 is a smidgen less sharp (overall per photodo) but it did have a great portrait rep. f/2.8: http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif f/2.5: http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASP9025.gif in the f/8 graphs, you can see that the tangential and sagital lines are paralell and close in the f/2.5 lens and divergent in the f/2.8 lens.] Close sagital and tangential lines is an indication of good out-of-focus properties (smooth bokeh) in a lens. In the wide open case, it is opposite... and the f/2.8 lens appears to have better oof characteristics. Anyone have experience with both variants? Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > I've always wondered if the strong "portrait" attribute of the Tamron > 90mm macro applies to the the f/2.5 version, and not at all to the f/2.8 > version. > ... > Anyone have experience with both variants? Pas moi, but I own and have used for several years the 2.8 version for both macro and portrait photography, and I think it's great. Some of my shoot-in entries (no portraits) were shot with that lens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23534029 http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/25250897 http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/33682080 >> I've always wondered if the strong "portrait" attribute of the Tamron >> 90mm macro applies to the the f/2.5 version, and not at all to the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/25250897 > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/33682080 No doubt that its a great lens (in both variants), I was just wondering about the 'portrait' legend applying to both or only one... Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. I've been using the cheapo Phoenix 100 mm macro for several months. The build is awful and I cringe whenever I focus or zoom but the optics are REMARKABLE for a lens in the $100 range. Not much different from the results I get with a Nikon 105 macro between f/5.6 and f/16. I don't worry a whole lot about dropping it in the field, either. Thank you all you have given me plenty to think about!! (camera's due on 22nd March (allegedly)) is it a good idea to buy first batch? or should i wait and see if there are "issues" (most of which i probably wouldnt realise because some of the stuff you have said went right over my head!! Lost > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Lost I just saw in some magazine (I think) that Canon has announced a 60mm macro lens. It is EF-S, but that should be fine for your Rebel. Sure enough, check it out: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&m odelid=11156 This lens should be smaller and lighter than those for full sized sensors. It should cost less too, but I don't know. Hey, if you are REALLY into macro, buy this lens: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&m odelid=7325 For better or worse, it will ONLY do macro. Then again, it will do it in closeup ranges you'll only dream of with other lenses. Hey, it ain't cheap, but... Clyde >> Hi all >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> however I also want the camera to be usable for "normal" pictures too >> (hence deciding an SLR may well be my best bet! This site will give you lots of good info: http://photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm If you intend to use the macro as a multi-purpose lens then the Sigma EX 50 DG is a superb all-rounder. On the 350D it will be a good portrait lens as well as one of the best macros around. But you'll be a bit limited when you need wide shots! If you intend to do a lot of macro work then you might be advised to go longer to avoid lighting problems. The canon 100 performs well. But with an equivalent FOV of a 160mm lens on 35mm film you'll be limited for every day use. But it's ideal for insects and invertebrates (my speciality also). Also highly rated by those in the know is the Tamron 90 SP macro, being preferred to the canon for its natural colour rendition. As a starting point I'd consider using the Canon 28 2.8 as a "standard" lens with the Sigma 50DG or Canon 100 macro for bugs. (Or the 18-55 kit lens with the 100 macro.) To get the depth of field you need with insects you're going to need to invest in either a twin flash or ring flash - although if you are working with captive subjects you can easily create a good set using an off-camera flash and plenty of bounce surfaces to light yur set. (Normal flash is no use whatsoever since insects have surprisingly reflective surfaces. And hard shadows just look wrong.) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.