Macro lens recommendations?
Mar 22, 2012 15:17:57 #
jerryc41 wrote:
That's what gets me about insect macro photography. How can you get so close to an insect and have it remain motionless long enough to get a shot?
redfordl wrote:
How far away from insect were you when snapping shot and I"m sure you were using a tripod? Thanks!!
That's what gets me about insect macro photography. How can you get so close to an insect and have it remain motionless long enough to get a shot?
Use Raid
Mar 22, 2012 17:15:12 #
dfalk wrote:
Chase it around the yard until it gets too tired to run away.
But I can't fly.
Mar 22, 2012 17:53:58 #
Mar 22, 2012 17:58:54 #
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.
Mar 22, 2012 18:22:18 #
pwd2004ringo wrote:
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.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?
Mar 22, 2012 19:16:38 #
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.
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.
Mar 22, 2012 19:29:36 #
Bozsik wrote:
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 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.
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
Mar 22, 2012 19:47:14 #
Mike Padgett wrote:
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.
Mar 22, 2012 19:59:47 #
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!!
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
Mar 22, 2012 22:55:54 #
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:
quote=Mike Padgett Thinking about a macro lens fo... (show quote)
Mar 22, 2012 23:03:56 #
tom hughes
Loc: Phila Pa
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.
Mar 22, 2012 23:28:48 #
tom hughes wrote:
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.I just purchased the Canon MPE-65.
Mar 22, 2012 23:39:26 #
Croce
Loc: Earth
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.
Mar 23, 2012 00:18:53 #
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.
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.
Mar 23, 2012 08:28:31 #
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 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.