I want to get a macro lens
Aug 2, 2012 21:38:30 #
I'd love to see some images taken with the reversing ring trick if you have any to share. I have a Canon 50mm 1.4f lens and want to try it out before buying a Tamron 90mm macro which gets a great write-up.
Can anyone tell me whether the Canon 100mm macro is better than the Tamron 90mm with a dslr Canon 600D? Or, whether the Tamron 60mm macro is as good as the Tamron 90mm? I prefer a more compact lens... thinking of my shoulders!
Thanks everyone.
Can anyone tell me whether the Canon 100mm macro is better than the Tamron 90mm with a dslr Canon 600D? Or, whether the Tamron 60mm macro is as good as the Tamron 90mm? I prefer a more compact lens... thinking of my shoulders!
Thanks everyone.
Aug 2, 2012 22:00:34 #
gnd wrote:
Just posted to the True Macro-Photography Forum: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-55515-1.htmlI'd love to see some images taken with the reversing ring trick if you have any to share.
Aug 2, 2012 22:02:25 #
JohnnyRottenNJ
Loc: Northern New Jersey
pinkycat wrote:
Thanks, Johnny. I agree, but right now the budget just doesn't allow for a new lens. I've compiled my camera equipment in about 10 months and the bank is closed for a while.
I hear you Pinky. I didn't run out and buy all my stuff in one shot. What exit on the GSP are you near? Right now I'm east of Exit 82 on Vacay. Usually I'm west of 145.
I'll tell you something though......I LIKE TAMRON. They make a great product at a very reasonable price.
Aug 2, 2012 22:14:58 #
gnd wrote:
Both the Canon 100-mm & Tamron 90-mm are fine macros, and you will find images from both posted to our Can anyone tell me whether the Canon 100mm macro is better than the Tamron 90mm with a dslr Canon 600D? Or, whether the Tamron 60mm macro is as good as the Tamron 90mm?
True Macro-Photography Forum: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html .
Working Distance (between lens front element to subject) is more important to macro-photographers than Minimum Focusing Distance (between sensor to subject).
On a Canon with an APS-C sensor, with lenses set at MFD:
100-mm lens = 160-mm = 6.3-inchws WD;
90-mm lens = 144-mm = 5.7-inches WD;
60-mm lens = 96-mm = 3.8-inches.
The longer your macro lens, the easier to photograph insects, hummingbirds, etc.
Aug 2, 2012 22:18:49 #
Paul B.
Loc: North Carolina
For a tight budget I would try extension tubes and a nice 50mm lens.I use a Nikon 1.8 50mm lens and a set of Kenko extension tubes on a Nikon D5100 and it works great.I does.have a Sigma 28-200 macro lens and it don't take near the picture that the tubes and 50mm lens
Aug 2, 2012 22:59:07 #
Thanks Nikonian 72. Good info. there. I'll probably go for the Tamron 90mm.Thanks for your time and enthusiasm :)
Aug 2, 2012 23:14:24 #
woodsliv wrote:
What are the pro and cons of the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR?
reading the reviews it sounds ok. I have a limited budget about $350.00. I know there are a lot better lenses. I have a Nikon D3100
reading the reviews it sounds ok. I have a limited budget about $350.00. I know there are a lot better lenses. I have a Nikon D3100
Take Nikonian72's advice. He knows whereof what he says. Why he's wasting his time with us mere mortals, I do not know, but I am ever so much thankful for his insight and advice. 8-)
Aug 2, 2012 23:21:17 #
I appreciate all the help tonight from everyone. I have a lot of info and I did go to Nikonians site and read his stuff. I have already emailed B& H and asked a few questions. Thanks everyone
Aug 2, 2012 23:32:19 #
jecanes wrote:
I have a 50mm f2.8 prime lens from my old Yashica SLR, I bought a reversing ring with 52mm thread for my d3100 and voila, I have a macro lens!
That is a great suggestion. Simply buying a reversing ring for an existing lens is an excellent way to begin. Has anyone ever experimented with a reversing ring and step-up/down adapters to try macro with more than one lens? Adorama has a 52mm reversing ring for less than $10. Remember, you will lose AF & AE.
Aug 2, 2012 23:46:17 #
Bill41 wrote:
Reverse-mounting a lens to a lens normally mounted to a camera, is an easy (and heavy) way to make a macro lens, but the math and settings can be confusing.Has anyone ever experimented with a reversing ring and step-up/down adapters to try macro with more than one lens?
As examples:
a 100-mm lens mounted to a camera, with a 50-mm lens reverse-mounted = 100/50 = 2:1 magnification (2x life-size);
a 135-mm lens mounted to a camera, with a 28-mm lens reverse-mounted = 135/28 = 4.8:1 magnification (4.8x life-size).
Unfortunately, these combinations demand a lot of light for focusing, and even more for exposure.
Bill41 wrote:
At high magnifications, Auto-Focus and Auto-Exposure are not used, but Auto-Aperture is still functional.Remember, you will lose AF & AE.
Aug 3, 2012 00:13:01 #
I wasn't thinking about mounting one lens reversed on another mounted lens. If I could get a reversing ring for a 67mm lens, could I mount the ring on the camera, use a 67-52 step down ring and reverse my 50mm f/1.8. What would be the effect of the added thickness of the step down ring on sensor to nodal distance?
Aug 3, 2012 01:23:59 #
Me again, and I was interested in what result just using a 50mm f1.4 lens with a reversing ring onto the camera would produce?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Aug 3, 2012 10:22:58 #
I have a friend that has the Tamron 90mm macro and he loves it.
If you really want to go crazy you could get bellows. :) Though I have not used mine much since the digital age. And forget it with hand holding or anything that moves. :lol:
I suppose if you cant (or dont want to) get close to your subject the old Nikon 55 micro is not the best choice. I was only a few inches from the 50 cent piece that I posted. I seem to remember that's the difference between micro and macro, you get close for micro, farther back for macro.
If you really want to go crazy you could get bellows. :) Though I have not used mine much since the digital age. And forget it with hand holding or anything that moves. :lol:
I suppose if you cant (or dont want to) get close to your subject the old Nikon 55 micro is not the best choice. I was only a few inches from the 50 cent piece that I posted. I seem to remember that's the difference between micro and macro, you get close for micro, farther back for macro.
Aug 3, 2012 14:38:34 #
Cotondog wrote:
I'm sure there are a number of great macro-specific lenses out there. One of the many reasons I went with the canon 100 mm 2.8 (rather than the 50 or 60 mm)is that you do not have to get as close to your subject when photographing. This can make a big difference if you photograph bugs, bees on flowers, etc.
Bee on flower hand held, spring hike Catalina Mtns. Brand new camera, only had kit lens of 18-55mm at the time. Thought it was going to be soooo easy. haven't come close since. Obviously beginners luck.
Aug 4, 2012 01:35:53 #
That's great detail. I don't know if a dedicated macro lens would do better. Thanks again. gnd
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.