Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
Macro Photography
Jul 6, 2013 14:10:00 #
My question is what is the difference between a 24 to 70 2.8L Canon lens with macro capabilities at 1.3' and a Canon 100m 2.8L macro lens Would it be worth the $1000 investment to purchase the 100m macro lens.
Thanks for input
Thanks for input
Jul 6, 2013 14:16:48 #
lindmike wrote:
My question is what is the difference between a 24 to 70 2.8L Canon lens with macro capabilities at 1.3' and a Canon 100m 2.8L macro lens Would it be worth the $1000 investment to purchase the 100m macro lens.
Thanks for input
Thanks for input
The 28-70 does not focus to true macro, which is 1:1. The "worth" of any one lens is personal. There are a number of other options which will get you to 1:1 (image size replicated on sensor). The UHH macro section has a lot of detail about this field of photography.
Jul 6, 2013 14:39:47 #
Close up filters are another way to get macro photos without the high price tag. They actually work very well.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Jul 6, 2013 14:42:51 #
Jul 6, 2013 14:43:12 #
Jul 6, 2013 14:46:58 #
Whimzey wrote:
.Close up filters are another way to get macro photos without the high price tag. They actually work very well.
Take a look at the Raynox250. Extension tubes are another option
Jul 6, 2013 14:48:34 #
Jul 6, 2013 14:55:13 #
If what you want is true 1:1 macro the 100 mm f2.8 is worth every penny. Not only do you get the macro but this is a wonderfully sharp lens, sharper than zooms. You can also use it for portraits, and I have even used it for sports when I could get close enough. Check out the true macro photography section and most there shoot the 100 or the equivalent on their camera.
Jul 6, 2013 15:01:33 #
Jul 6, 2013 15:01:34 #
Jul 7, 2013 10:54:08 #
24 70 is not a Macro lens. The 100 mm 2.8 L is a great lens, not just for macro but for portraits as well. If you have the $$$... Its worth it. I have it and I am verry pleased with it.
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Jul 7, 2013 11:26:08 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
.
Take a look at the Raynox250. Extension tubes are another option
Take a look at the Raynox250. Extension tubes are another option
A set of tubes for $15 - $35 sure beats hundreds of $ for a lens.
Jul 7, 2013 13:42:02 #
Jul 7, 2013 13:42:03 #
Jul 7, 2013 13:44:09 #
The difference is - how close do you really want to get ? and what are your IQ requirements ? Most closeups of live subjects require a minimum of 100mm for a reasonable working distance. Like most zooms, the 24-70 at close up range, the 70mm winds up being about 50mm equivilent. There are many other cheaper options than spending $1000 for a "macro" lens. Personally, I like the 70-200 F4L with 1.4X and Canon close up lens - especially for live disturbable subjects. ... - an example below. And yes, I know this "only" close up and not technically "macro ". This was shot at about 1:4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Panorama section of our forum.