Do you know a good lense? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/24/2006 09:15:07 AM · #4

Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro for $200

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

07/24/2006 09:29:25 AM · #5

Check B&H and Canon for a rebate but I think the EF-S 60 USM is around $400 or less possibly with a $50 rebate. Or ebay for this lense no zoom though. Or 28-135 IS has macro but may cost more. Try finding it used..

PShizzy

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/25/2006 03:05:44 AM · #6

a good zoom is often really expensive, because it takes a lot of glass and optical quality to get a zoom to perform on par with a prime lens.

with a cap of 350 dollars, you just fall short of the Tamron 28-75 at major stores. If you can find one used, you should be able to stay just under the cap.

Get a good copy, and you should be very happy with it. To get the 28-75 range in a 2.8 throughout, you'd be looking at a lot of money from Canon (think 1150 or so).

Max

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

07/25/2006 03:12:53 AM · #7

Pretty happy with the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super
Not the sharpest out there at 300mm, but still does a decent job.

A few taken with it:

Many of the shots in my candids folders, B&W & color, were also done with it.

Message edited by author 2006-07-25 19:43:31.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/25/2006 09:22:50 AM · #8

For your budget, I'd also recommend the 70-300 by Sigma. It has a 1:2 ratio which is pretty decent for general macro type photography. I think the crop factor has an effect on that as well because you are only getting a portion of that 2.

I would consider picking up an extension tube as well if you wanted to go closer.

Check the lens reversal tutorial as well if you want another option that also works great with that lens.

The Tamron 28-75 is good but only gives like a 1:5 ratio. You had better be taking pics of something fairly large to even begin to consider that 'macro'.

1:2 is usually sufficient for most things like larger insects and flowers. The zoom of the 70-300 also gives a bit of freedom for larger subjects.

Message edited by author 2006-07-25 09:24:29.

tapeworm_jimmy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

07/25/2006 05:52:07 PM · #9

Im glad to hear a lot of pple mentioning the sigma 70-300, cause thats seriously what ive had my eyes on. Im pretty sure thats what im gonna end up grabbing! Thanks to all who helped! ill try and leave you a comment. Cheers,

Phil

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/25/2006 05:58:40 PM · #10

Originally posted by eschelar:

The Tamron 28-75 is good but only gives like a 1:5 ratio. You had better be taking pics of something fairly large to even begin to consider that 'macro'.

The Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom is actually a 1:2 near-macro lens, not 1:5. It has almost completely supplanted the Canon 60mm f/2.8 for my closeup work, just because the zoom makes things a lot easier in framing up the shot. It's a hell of a good lens, outstanding performance. I wouldn't be without it in my arsenal, unless I happened to have a (far more expensive) Canon L zoom like the 24-70mm... Street price around $350.

R.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/25/2006 07:27:57 PM · #11

shot with a 28-135 IS Canon lens. Best bang for the buck if you can find it used somewhere around $300 or so.

DanSig

07/25/2006 07:53:07 PM · #12

Originally posted by coronamv:

shot with a 28-135 IS Canon lens. Best bang for the buck if you can find it used somewhere around $300 or so.

I hope this lens can do better than that.. it's sooooo soft it's almost bad.... even though the thumbnail looked good...

Spork99

OM System OM-1

07/25/2006 08:53:21 PM · #13

Originally posted by coronamv:

shot with a 28-135 IS Canon lens. Best bang for the buck if you can find it used somewhere around $300 or so.

I had the 28-135 for a while, but I was never happy with it and sold it for my Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I've seen some peple get decent results with the 28-135, but I never thought it was that sharp. The IS on that lens is really pretty meaningless, since the lens is so slow, doesn't get you anything that having a faster lens won't. It also seemed to be pretty sloppily built. When zoomed to 135mm, the extended front element wiggled around significantly. Many other users have noted the same thing with their lens.

It's not really a macro lens, it will focus pretty close, but the Tamron 28-75 does better.

If you want Macro, get the 50mm f1.8 and a set of Kenko extension tubes. That will get you better than 1.4:1 if you need it for under $300.

You can also use the tubes with just about any other lens to get macro/close focus capability.

07/25/2006 10:59:24 PM · #14

Well it is severly reduced in size so hold on and I will get the original uploaded to my storage site and link too it so you can see the detail