lonewolf456

I only have one lens, so don't quite understand your response.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Nice shots! Is the photo of the fly in the first photograph a "blue tail fly" such as in the song "Jimmy Cracks Corn"?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

How much do you want to spend? How large a lens are you willing to carry?

For close-up photography, a macro lens is ideal. There are a number of those at different price points with somewhat different features, but most are capable of making fine images.

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM is one of the more affordable macro lenses. Normally I'd recommend a longer focal length for more working distance, but much flower photography isn't done at the lens' highest magnification, so a 60mm might be find an is relatively compact. $400 right now, plus about $30 for the lens hood (sold separately).

Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Di II Macro/Portrait is also quite compact and a stop faster than most macro lenses, making it better than most as a dual purpose lens, for portraiture too. Both this Tamron and the Canon 60mm are "internal focusing", meaning they don't grow any longer when focused closer. The Canon 60mm uses faster, quieter USM focus drive... while the Tamron 60mm uses slower micro motor to focus, not able to keep up with sports/action, but find for macro and portraiture. The Tamron fine lens that costs anout $525.

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di... there are two versions.... a cheaper one ($500) that has fine image quality, but uses slower micro motor to focus and isn't internal focusing. The more expensive ($650) version has faster USD focus drive, is internal focusing and has VR image stabilization.

Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 FX is one of the most affordable macro lenses, currently on sale for about $360. It's not fancy... not internal focusing, slower micro motor focus... but is fine for macro shooting.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM is an older, but still excellent design that sells for $600... internal focusing, faster USM focus drive.... it and the other Canon 100mm are also the only macro lenses around these focal lengths thant can optionally be fitted with at helpful and useful tripod mounting ring (tripod ring B costs an add'l $150, but there are 3rd party clones for around $50)... lens hood sold separately (Canon $25, cheaper clones avail.).

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM is a newer design with images stabilization added, that costs $750 (lens hood included, like most L-series lenses... Canon Tripod Ring D, $172. Vello clone tripod ring, $50.)

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM has image stabilization and faster ultrasonic focus drive. It's on sale right now for about $570.

All the above are capable of excellent image quality. Some have image stabilization, which has limited effectiveness at higher magnifications but may prove useful for other types of shots. I mention slower micro motor and faster ultrasonic focus in several cases, too... but be aware that even the fastest focusing macro lenses aren't especially fast. In order to focus from infinity to 1:1 magnification, they have to move a group of lens elements a long, long way! They also are typically designed with "long throw" focus that emphasizes precision, over speed. That's because depth of field can be quite shallow at high magnifications, making precise focus all the more important. Many of the lenses mentioned have a "focus limiter" feature that can help with focus speed a bit, which can be set by the user to make the lens focus within a certain range and have to do less work for each shot.

Personally I use a Tamron SP 60mm, a vintage manual focus Tamron SP 90mm, a Canon 100mm USM (older version), and Canon 180mm f/3.5L USM macro lenses. I also use several other lenses for close up work, that aren't technically macro lenses.

If budget is tight, you actually should be able to do pretty well with the 18-135mm lens you have.... if yours is the older micro motor version I or II of that lens (not marked STM or USM), it's only able to do approx. 1/5 life size on it's own. The newer STM and latest USM versions of the 18-135mm are a little closer focusing, able to do better than 1/4 life size on their own. But any of them can be made to focus closure using Macro Extension Tubes. These come in sets with several sizes that can be used individual or together to act as spacers between the lens and camera, which will make the lens much closer focusing. The Kenko tube set is one of the best and reasonably priced around $125. There are cheaper ($50 to $75), but they are a little to a lot more "plasticky". Canon also makes their own, but only sell them individually and they are pricey.... one Canon tube costs more than the Kenko set of three, which are similar quality. Nice thing about macro extension tubes is that they are very universal... can be used with almost any lens that fits your camera. They also have no optics to "mess with" lens image quality. Easy to use, too.... I always carry a few of them.

For wildlife photography, you will want a longer focal length lens. They really aren't long enough for some things, but among the more compact and affordable are Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM ($300 + $25 hood) or EF 70-300mm IS USM "II" (on sale $450 + $45 hood) or the earlier version EF 70-300mm IS USM, discontinued but still avail. new for $375 (+$38 Canon hood or $15 Vello hood). AVOID the really cheap Canon EF 75-300mm "III" lens (often $200 or less)... it's slow focusing, lacks image stabilization (important and very helpful on longer telephotos like these), and just doesn't have the best image quality. The EF-S 55-250mm is a much better lens for just a little more money. Top of the line is the Canon EF 70-300mm "L" IS USM, more sturdily built, better sealed for weather and dust resistance, high performance in all respects, and able to optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring... but a lot more expensive at $1350 (hood incl., tripod ring C costs $165).

However, longer focal length might be needed for wildlife... especially smaller and shyer critters! The Canon 100-400mm IS USM II is a superb lens, very sharp (uses fluorite), fast focusing, high performance in all respects... but 3.5 lb. and close to $2000. Sigma and Tamron both now also offer more affordable 100-400mm lenses. There are lots of detailed reviews comparing these three online, but basically they both sell for about $800, and are both a little smaller and lighter than the Canon. Between the two, the Sigma appears to be slightly sharper, but it doesn't have and can't even optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring, which I consider to be an essential feature for long focal lengths light these... especially when they're used on a crop sensor camera like yours (and mine, for that matter). The Canon 100-400mm comes with a tripod ring included... The Tamron doesn't include it, but they offer one optionally, sold separately for $129. The Sigma doesn't even have option for a t'pod ring.

The Sigma also is the "slowest" of these three lenses. It's f/5 at 100mm, but it drops to f/5.6 almost immediately when zoomed, until around 235mm when it further drops to f/6.3... It's actually 2/3 stop slower than the Canon through most of their focal length range...The Tammy is 1/3 stop slower than the Canon at many focal lengths. 1/3 or 2/3 stop doesn't sound like much... but none of these lenses are "big aperture/low light", and some of the best wildlife photo opportunities are in low light conditions. Of the three, the Canon has the best chance of being able to "get the shot"..... but the third party lenses are much less expensive.

If you are willing to carry around a bigger, heavier lens... there are also Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm zooms available. These are more likely to require a tripod... or at least a monopod (all the 150-600s come with tripod rings incl.) Sigma actually makes two versions... a more affordable "C" or "Contemporary" for about $1000 and a higher performance, better sealed and more durable, but bigger and heavier "S" or "Sports" version that costs $1800. Tamron's current 150-600mm model is a "G2"... their second, improved version... that's selling for $1300. Their prior version is discontinued, but still available for around $800. All these lenses have image stabilization (essential!) and reasonably fast ultrasonic focus drive. They are all about 4.5 lb., except for the Sigma "Sport", which is around 6 lb.

A worthwhile alternative is the Canon's EF 300mm f/4L IS USM (which works well with their 1.4X teleconverters, to make it a 420mm f/5.6). That lens costs $1350 (teleconverter 1.4X III is another $430) and is a stop faster and a little lighter than many of the zooms... but not quite as versatile. The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM is also a superb lens, is on sale for $1150, but it lacks image stabilization (so is more likely to require a tripod or at least a monopod) and it will not be able to autofocus on your camera with a teleconverter added. (Same with the zooms... adding a TC to any of them will make your T4i unable to AF too. But some of the newest camera models can AF additional lens/TC combos, if you ever upgrade that too.)

There are other faster, longer more powerful and high performance telephoto lenses and zooms... but the prices are MUCH HIGHER than what's listed above.

Hope this helps! Have fun shopping!

lonewolf456

That's a bundle if excellent info. Thanks

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I HIGHLY recommend the Canon 70-300 IS II nano - it is ASTOUNDING ! ....https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-is-ii.htm - and yes, I have one and use it extensively.

Make sure to get either the Canon 500D 72mm close up lens with an adapter to 67mm, and/or, a Canon EF 12mm extension tube to go with the lens for close-ups.

As long as this is turning into a show and tell ego trip thread,

Canon 80D and 70-300 IS II nano @300mm f5.6 hand held.....

..

(Download)

pbradin Loc: Florida

If you are doing "close-up" shots and you are letting the camera do the settings for you (the dreaded green square on the control dial), then it may not be the lens that is giving you images that are a little "soft". It might be camera/lens settings. If you are letting the camera pick which autofocus point is "active" (the point where the camera is actually focusing), it may be choosing a part of the flower that is not the part that you want to focus on. To get the most out of your camera/lens combination, you need to take control of your camera settings. To do the type of photography you want to do, set that round dial on the top of the camera to "Ap". Ap means "aperture priority". The aperture doesn't only control the diameter of the opening that lets the light in to your camera sensor, but it also controls what is known as "depth of field". Depth-of-field is the distance from the front to the back of your subject matter that is in sharp focus. The smaller the aperture number, the shallower the depth-of-field is, that is the shorter the distance, from front to back, that your subject will be in focus. So, if you focus on the part of the flower that is closest to you AND you have your lens zoomed all the way out to 135mm, and you have it at its maximum aperture, in your case f5.6, your depth-of-field will be pretty shallow, especially if you are very close to the flower. How close to the subject matter you are, also effects the depth-of-field. My suggestion is to set up a flower to photograph and shoot that photo several different times, changing the aperture in a progression fro f5.6 to f16. Then look at how the "in focus" part of the photo changes. Make sure that the sensitivity (ISO) is set to a high enough number that the camera can achieve proper exposure at the slower shutter speeds that the camera will automatically work towards as you take your photos at smaller and smaller sized apertures. Now here is the kicker - smaller aperture numbers mean larger openings. A setting of F5.6 is a larger opening than F16. I want to find the person who came up with this system and just slap him up the side of the head. But, try this series of photos and they will teach you more in five minutes than ten minutes of my babbling ever will. Then do it at different focal lengths, but physically move the camera forwards or backwards to keep the subject the same size in the viewfinder. Do not change the aperture at all while you are doing this last series of photos. Only change the lens focal length by zooming the lens in or out to fill the view finder. You should notice that using a longer focal length makes the depth-of-field shorter (or "shallower") from front to back. I know, it sounds confusing. It sounded confusing to me in 1962, but I got the hang of it pretty quickly, and so will you. After you understand that a shorter focal length and a small aperture (with that larger number, say, f16), will give you a sharper image, you may discover that it is not the lens that is the cause of not-sharp-enough photos, but it is your camera settings and your distance from the subject that is causing the softness in your photos. I hope my post makes some sense. It will if you set the camera and a flower up and go through the steps I outlined. For the longer wildlife stuff, a Canon 70-300 IS lens is a good choice unless you have a couple thousand dollars laying around and you want to spring for Canon's 100-400, f4.5 - 5.6 IS II L series zoom, but that would be a bit of overkill on your current camera. You may have a little trouble with fast-enough autofocus with birds in flight, but with birds on a branch or wading or nesting, you should be okay. If you are shooting birds in flight you will probably need to set the ISO at an absolute minimum of 400 on a typical sunny day get shots don't have motion blur. There are a couple of ways to upgrade to a telephoto "on the cheap". One is to go to KEH on the internet. They are the largest retailer of used camera equipment in the world. They also have knowledgeable people who can help you make reasonable choices within your budget and they stand behind their products. B&H photo and Adorama Photo in New York have a large online presence , too. They sell both new and used equipment and sometimes they will have refurbished equipment. Refurbished equipment is used equipment that is brought up to the original new specs. I have dealt with all of these businesses and have never had a problem with any of them. And, just to let you know, every lens and teleconverter in my bag has been bought either refurbished or used. Canon also sells refurbished camera bodies and lenses on the Canon website. Just look under "deals". Good luck and happy shooting.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

If you want to do wildlife, get a long lens such as Canon's 100-400mm zoom. For flowers and such, just about any lens will work including your kit lenses. But for really close ups you might like the 100mm macro. None of these lenses will make an expert of you; that takes a lot of practice.

lonewolf456

Good advice. jeep daddy. Thank you.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Nope, note it is green, not blue.
I don't remember the species, but I hate them, they inject their eggs in caterpillars which of course die when the larva eat their way out. Makes it nearly impossible for me to raise any butterflies in spite of all the butterfly friendly plants in my yard.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Thanks

lonewolf456

Great info, thanks very much.

Photocraig

I have the old Tamron 90mm Macro. And it isn't too shabby either. But no IS. If you're doing MACRO, you should be on a tripod, anyway. Great result. With an APS-C sensor like the T4, I suggest, a shorter focal length unless you need to be as far away as the effective 144mm focal length sets you. On Full Frame, it is an excellent Portrait lens. However, unless you're doing tight head shots, the Focal length is a little long for studio. OK for outdoors.

Post in the MACRO section for wiser opinions.
C

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

I absolutely love my Canon 100mm f2.8L macro.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

I agree, Linda. It is more likely a DOF/Aperture or even shutter speed issue and not the lens itself.