| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/20/2005 03:49:12 PM · #1 |
i want a macro lens
bad
but i dont know what would be the best one, i want the 180mm f/3.5L macro from canon
but ive seen a lot of good pictures from the 105mm range macro lenses as well
i dont want anything less than 100mm
input?
Message edited by author 2005-07-20 15:49:29.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 03:53:14 PM · #2 |
Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro 3x cheaper than the 180mm f/3.5L
Plus, and I quote from your Biography: I need money for college, donate via paypal to csmithphotography@gmail.com thanks :)
:D |
|
|
|
07/20/2005 03:53:57 PM · #3 |
I hear that the Sigma 150 and 180 are also quite good. I have the 105 and love it - I can't afford to spend $600 on a lens anytime soon, so I went with the cheaper option (though I'm still very pleased in quality). Paid $285 for the used 105 on eBay, w/ shipping.
Message edited by author 2005-07-20 15:56:42.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 04:06:37 PM · #4 |
Just put a $70 Kenko extension tube one your 70-200 f/2.8L and you're good to go. Note that the two Kenko tubes sold individually will autofocus, but those sold as a set won't. This one was taken with extension tubes and a 70-200 f/4L (I'm not a student and still can't afford an f/2.8):
There are several other butterfly shots in my Challenge Outtakes portfolio (all were taken handheld).
This one is a crop of a toad I found last night and shot in dim evening lighting with the same setup (I was debating an entry for Texture, but 600+ entries was enough).
Message edited by author 2005-07-20 16:07:31.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 04:07:52 PM · #5 |
| Uh Shannon, I have the Kenko set and it auto focuses. |
|
|
|
07/20/2005 04:10:19 PM · #6 |
I had a Pro Optics set from Adorama that wouldn't autofocus (despite what their web site claims). Adorama's tech guy said that it was a typo and insisted that only the individual Kenko tubes (and Canon's own model) would autofocus.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 04:56:17 PM · #7 |
well, im a bit of a ways off from purchasing a lens, a few months, but i have L fever and ide rather save up for the extra quality
but does the sigma or tamron macro lenses match up in color, contrast and sharpness of a canon L lens?
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 05:06:57 PM · #8 |
Extension tubes have no glass, they just allow you to focus closer with your existing lenses. No quality is lost, so why wouldn't you just get an extension tube?
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 05:14:35 PM · #9 |
The quality of the Canon 100mm Macros is on par with the L lenses. The only problems with it, are that you don't have as much working distance. The sigma 150/180 are both great alternatives. The Tamron 90mm is supposed to be the sharpest of the bunch iirc. Pretty much any macro lens you buy, be it canon, sigma, leica, zeiss... will be excellent. Also, don't worry too much about focus speed because you probably won't be using it with macro work anyway.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 05:15:46 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Also, don't worry too much about focus speed because you probably won't be using it with macro work anyway. |
AF that is. ;o)
Message edited by author 2005-07-20 17:16:05.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 05:19:17 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
AF that is. ;o) |
lol! yeah, that's what i meant :-)
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 05:21:42 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Extension tubes have no glass, they just allow you to focus closer with your existing lenses. No quality is lost, so why wouldn't you just get an extension tube? |
hmm ill look into those, do you lose a f stop when you use them or no?
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 05:23:36 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Extension tubes have no glass, they just allow you to focus closer with your existing lenses. No quality is lost, so why wouldn't you just get an extension tube? |
hmm ill look into those, do you lose a f stop when you use them or no? |
Yes you do lose light, and the ability to focus to infinity.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2005 05:35:58 PM · #14 |
Bear in mind that the longer a lens you buy for macro work, the less DOF you have to play with at a given f/stop. Being able to work from further away is a plus with live (or dangerous) subjects, but the need to stop down further for the same DOF means a longer shutter speed or a higher ISO, so there's a tradeoff.
Bear in mind also that the Canon 100mm macro was designed for 35 mm cameras, and that the 60mm was designed specifically for the EOS cams. 60mm x 1.6 = 96mm, the 35mm/equivalent focal length of the lens. I thought about this long and hard, and went with the 60mm lens for that reason; it's a more versatile walkaround lens at the 96mm equivalent than is the 100mm f/2.8 at its 160mm equivalent, a fairly pronounced telephoto. Optically they are supposed to be of equivalent quality. Certainly the 60mm seems VERY sharp and crisp to me, and its additional DOF makes hand-held macro a more realistic proposition.
Robt.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 01:39:19 PM EDT.
