Looks like flash was used so it didn't need to stay still.
rodpark2 wrote:
Looks like flash was used so it didn't need to stay still.
Oh, that poor insect! He must have been flying around bumping into things.
pwd2004ringo wrote:
I've been reading this post cause I too want a macro lens. I'm looking at the L-100mm macro, but a friend of mind suggested the L-180mm macro f/3.5. I already have a 70-200L 2.8 IS. Is the 180 going to be a better macro lens?
The two differences will be
Working Distance (between lens front element and subject), and viewing brightness (f/2.8 vs f/3.5). For 1:1 mag. (life-size), WD for 100-mm lens is about 6-inches; WD for 180-mm lens is approximately 10-inches. An f/2.8 aperture is about 35% brighter than a f/3.5 aperture for viewing & focusing. For photography, both lenses will close to appropriate aperture.
Bozsik
Loc: Orangevale, California
The macro lens is a great way to go, but you have to have the money to do it.
I just went outside and slapped on an extension tube with the 28-300 zoom. These images were hand-held, breezy, overcast day, no VR, and at ISO 800. Not the optimal conditions for shooting, but the results are pretty decent.
Here are the results. Here are the questions you need to ask. Do you have the doe to throw at a macro lens? If you do, go for it. You won't go wrong.
Are you selling your images for a living? If not, do have anything better to do with the extra 3/4 of a grand in money?
Tubes are an excellent solution for many people as are some brands of close-up filters.
It's your decision, but lens manufacturers are willing to sell you any lens you want to buy, and the camera store dealers will sell you the largest commission they can make.
Good lenses are worth spending money on. If it is for your own satisfaction, only you know your limit.
Bozsik wrote:
I just went outside and slapped on an extension tube with the 28-300 zoom. These images were hand-held, breezy, overcast day, no VR, and at ISO 800. Not the optimal conditions for shooting, but the results are pretty decent.
NONE of your example photographs are macros. ALL are close-up photos. In order for your images to be macros, all of the flowers would have to be smaller than a dime, which fills the sensor at 1:1 (life-size), which is the definition of macro-photography.
I see an ant in your last photo. Here are true macros of ants, taken with a Nikkor 105G macro lens, no tubes, no add-ons:
Bicolored Pyramid Ant Dorymyrmex bicolor 2-mm
Red Imported Fire ants Solenopsis invicta 2-mm to 4-mm
Velvety Tree Ant Liometopum occidentale 3-mm
Mike Padgett wrote:
Thanks for the link, travlman46. Very helpful for newbie like me. From everything I'm reading, I'm leaning toward the Canon 100mm L lens. It will be an investment. 'Course, a good used model would be preferable.
travlnman46 wrote:
Mike Padgett wrote:
Thinking about a macro lens for my Canon 7D. Want a versatile macro for walk-around use that will function for extreme closeups for flowers, hummingbirds, butterflies, etc. Leaning toward Canon 100mm L lens, but the price sent me into pause mode.
Thanks for any recommendations on what to consider, as well as warnings on what to avoid.
Hi Mike Padgett: I just purchased my Canon EF 100mm 2.8 usm macro lens used off of Craigs List from a local guy who bought it a couple years ago refurbished from B&H. I paid $375. I don't know if that is a lot or a little for you to spend. You can see from the photos posted by dfalk with the same lens it offers true macro 1:1, it also is a great portrait lens and will focus to infinity . Here is a website that offers great information on Canon lenses, it is easily understood and geared to beginner photographers.
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html Hope this helps..
quote=Mike Padgett Thinking about a macro lens fo... (
show quote)
Thanks for the link, travlman46. Very helpful for ... (
show quote)
Hi Mike: You are more than welcome. I refer to that website every time I have a question concerning any lens that I'm curious about, it has certainly been a help to me.
redfordl wrote:
Beautiful macros of insects!! Clarity and detail is just awesome. By the way,being a newbie in macro what is the difference between your ef macro lens vs the Is &L macro
Lenses? How far away from insect were you when snapping shot and I"m sure you were using a tripod? Thanks!!
Hi redford: Here is a website I recommend to anyone who has questions concerning lenses, especially Canon lenses.
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html
ThomasS, thanks for your input. The Canon 100mm 2.8 IS has my attention. The price ($980 at the company named after a jungle) has me hesitating. Hoping to find a good used one.
ThomasS wrote:
Mike Padgett wrote:
Thinking about a macro lens for my Canon 7D. Want a versatile macro for walk-around use that will function for extreme closeups for flowers, hummingbirds, butterflies, etc. Leaning toward Canon 100mm L lens, but the price sent me into pause mode.
Thanks for any recommendations on what to consider, as well as warnings on what to avoid.
The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS macro is not cheap, but I love the thing. In addition to macro shots, it is a fantastic portrait lens. I do a lot of shooting without a tripod, so the IS is a must for me.
quote=Mike Padgett Thinking about a macro lens fo... (
show quote)
I have the 100mm L series, the autofocus on that lens, for Macro shots, is a life saver, unbelievably quick and sharp. I found sitting in a field of wild flowers, in Valley Forge State Park, waiting for that bee or butterfly to land on the flower I was focused on so much more rewarding than the sidelines of a football game that I just purchased the Canon MPE-65. Loved the posted shots.
tom hughes wrote:
I just purchased the Canon MPE-65.
I will be very interested in seeing your 2x, 3x, 4x macro results with your 65-mm. I am also interested in how you illuminate subjects when they within just a few inches WD.
Mike, I of course could be wrong but I have serious doubts as to the value of IS in macro work. The IS will not keep your bug from walking or your flower from moving in the breeze. Nor will it solve your 1 or 2 millimeter critical focus distance problem when 3 inches from your subject. Nor will it throw more light on the subject so that you can focus it. There is a $450 difference in the price of these lenses. From my experience it is a very expensive bell without even a whistle. Bells and whistles are nice but. My take: Save the money, buy yourself a nice ring flash, take whats left and buy yourself a nice big ice cream sundae with peanuts and chocolate syrup.
Bozsik
Loc: Orangevale, California
Sorry. 24mmx36mm is 1:1 ratio on full frame camera. Not a "dime".
Please post your images of the species of Hummingbird that will fit into a 1:1 ratio macro. I am not familiar with the species.
Excellent points you make. Might end up renting the lens before I take the plunge. Thanks.
Croce wrote:
Mike, I of course could be wrong but I have serious doubts as to the value of IS in macro work. The IS will not keep your bug from walking or your flower from moving in the breeze. Nor will it solve your 1 or 2 millimeter critical focus distance problem when 3 inches from your subject. Nor will it throw more light on the subject so that you can focus it. There is a $450 difference in the price of these lenses. From my experience it is a very expensive bell without even a whistle. Bells and whistles are nice but. My take: Save the money, buy yourself a nice ring flash, take whats left and buy yourself a nice big ice cream sundae with peanuts and chocolate syrup.
Mike, I of course could be wrong but I have seriou... (
show quote)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.