PDA

View Full Version : macro lens



NewTekBuzz
05-13-2005, 09:36 AM
Im looking for a lens that is a true macro (not one thats labeled macro @ 4ft) I want a lens that you can get about 6" from object/bugs/whatever. I have a 20D.. any good canon ideas?

Norm in Fujino
05-13-2005, 09:57 AM
Im looking for a lens that is a true macro (not one thats labeled macro @ 4ft) I want a lens that you can get about 6" from object/bugs/whatever. I have a 20D.. any good canon ideas?

<wannabe pedant mode ON> To address a terminological quibble: the term "macro lens" has nothing inherently to do with getting up close to the subject; it simply means a lens that produces an image on the film/sensor plane that is equal to or larger than the real-life object (mag. 1:1 or above; in practice, "close to" that ratio). So if the lens produces a 1:1 image at 4 feet from the subject (or at 400 feet), it's still a "true" macro lens. In practice, most macro lenses are designed to require a short camera-subject distance, but usually that's a side-effect, not the purpose, of the design (you can shoot from 6" with many super wide-angle lenses as well, but they're not macro).
<wannabe pedant mode OFF>

speaklightly
05-13-2005, 06:16 PM
In the Nikon world the Nikkor 60mm Macro is pretty much the standard, among severalm different choices. In the Canon world, Jeff Keller, by his own admission uses a 50mm Sigma Macro, so the standards do seem somewhat flexible.

While your Macro may indeed be a bit different than mine, they are all close-ups at the end of the day.

Sarah Joyce

Norm in Fujino
05-13-2005, 08:16 PM
oops, double post

Norm in Fujino
05-13-2005, 08:59 PM
While your Macro may indeed be a bit different than mine, they are all close-ups at the end of the day.

If I can read your mind, I think you mean they're all *magnified images that look like they are taken from very close up*. In fact, the actual distance at which they're shot can be substantially different, which was the point of my initial pedantic message. Olympus right now has a great 50mm f2 lens that focuses up to a couple of inches away, but a 100mm lens is supposed to come out later in the year that will allow people to take pictures of the same magnification ratio as the 50mm, but from a farther standoff, for example, to prevent disturbing the bug or whatever you're shooting. --at least that's the way I understand it.

TheObiJuan
05-13-2005, 09:59 PM
my sigma 20mm f/1.8 can do really close focusing, like a couple of inches, but is not macro. I believe it is 1:3.8 or something, not 1:1.

My sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 super macro II is also not a macro, or really close focusing, as it needs to be around 17" away to focus, and doesn't give 1:1, I actually don't know the exact ratio it gives.

Snap Dragon
05-14-2005, 01:23 PM
While we're on the subject on macro lens, are there any disadvantages whatsoever if I use a macro lens as a "regular" lens? As an example, right now I'm looking into either the:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Lens
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens

Putting aside the cost and the aperture difference, will the 2.8 macro do just as well as the 2.0 lens if I were to use it as a portrait lens given the same exposure settings? I was at J&R and the guy actually told me that there is, think he mentioned something about the edges will be blurry or something like that if I were to use a macro for that purpose... Sounds to me from this thread, it might just be the magification factor that is effected and not the picture quality. So is the guy wrong?

Would definitely be nice if I only had to carry the macro lens and use it for portraits and macro instead of carrying around 2 lenses...

Imaginary
05-14-2005, 03:53 PM
While we're on the subject on macro lens, are there any disadvantages whatsoever if I use a macro lens as a "regular" lens? As an example, right now I'm looking into either the:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Lens
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens

Putting aside the cost and the aperture difference, will the 2.8 macro do just as well as the 2.0 lens if I were to use it as a portrait lens given the same exposure settings? I was at J&R and the guy actually told me that there is, think he mentioned something about the edges will be blurry or something like that if I were to use a macro for that purpose... Sounds to me from this thread, it might just be the magification factor that is effected and not the picture quality. So is the guy wrong?

Would definitely be nice if I only had to carry the macro lens and use it for portraits and macro instead of carrying around 2 lenses...

I have a similar question to snapdragon. I like to do Landscape photography and macro. these two things make up 90% of what I shoot. whould a fixed length Macro 50mm lense allow me to take landscape/nature photos without significant quality loss(albeit at a slightly telephoto length for landscape with the FOV magnification puting it at 75mm). I know a lot of the zoom "macros" have a switch you flip to, I suppose, move one of the elements into a better position for focusing close.

I am looking at the minolta 7D and will probably get a 17-35mm f/2.8-4 zoom but would like a macro ability. I plan on having a 50mm prime lense in my bag. Being able to use the macro lense for other shots would save me the hastle of caring another prime 50mm lense. Or if you know of a decent zoom between 28-100 (even shorter range is fine) that has some macro ability that would possibly work for me.

TheObiJuan
05-14-2005, 04:27 PM
Yes, both of you can use your macro lens for non-macro photography. The only downside to macro lenses is they are slow to focus. But for portrait work or landscape, you don't exactly need fast focusing.

The sigma 150mm macro is a great lens! It is much cheaper than the canon near the same focal range, but still pretty pricey at $600 or so.


Incidently I found this lens, the sigma 70-300 super macro for sale, very cheap too, http://www.canogacamera.com/e/env/0001ZbUD0cIZtTgWzQ4b7b6/searchresults.html?link=-DD-/info_pages/cam_info.html&item=invnew:55138

It is not the APO version so chromatic abberation could creep up.

jeisner
05-14-2005, 05:32 PM
Jeff Keller, by his own admission uses a 50mm Sigma Macro, so the standards do seem somewhat flexible.

I also use the 50mm DG EX Macro and it is a wonderful lens IMHO... VERY sharp and great colour/contrast and smooth bokeh...

I have also tried the 150mm and 105mm Sigma DG EX Macros and they seem just as good..

I am buying myself the 180mm Sigma DG EX in about two months (it is not cheap) and will definately post pictures/review of it, but obvioulsy can't give any first hand experience as yet...

The only problem I have seen with the Sigma's, as I have compared the 150mm Sigma to the 100mm Canon macro on my friends 20D is the focus speed. The Sigmas do seem to hunt every now and again. Especially if they start focusing the wrong way, so they go all the way to infinity, then switch and go all the way back again... It can take a while... Although that said if I am using it for macro work often I prefer MF anyway....

Ohh and as with Juan I have the 20mm f1.8 (and 28/1.8) and they can focus very close which is convieniant to take a quick close up shot without having to switch lens.... ;)



P.S. I also have the rather cheap Tamron 70-300 LD Macro (it does half life size from 180-300).. It isn't bad for a cheap close-up lens, I took the shot below with it....

http://mk23.image.pbase.com/u16/joele/upload/39037667.lavender_bee.jpg

TheObiJuan
05-15-2005, 02:55 AM
that is a wonderful shot, the bokeh is amazing. I probably couldnt tell the difference bw it and a canon macro lens.
This thread reminds me that I need to go out and shoot some more.

jeisner
05-15-2005, 03:08 AM
Yeah the bokeh is pretty nice...

It isn't a bad lens but it is only f5.6 at its brightest, so it is only good on a tripod in decent light... And the colour isn't great, it is OK with digital as when you process the RAW you can fix it up, but on film I really haven't liked the results from it, it just seems to be dull....

EDIT: but hey it costs around $150 so it is rather amazing value for money...

P.S. I deleted almost 2 dozen shots to get that one, the advantage of digital ;)

Snap Dragon
05-18-2005, 11:14 AM
Thanks for the info :) 1 less lense to carry is always a good thing...

cwphoto
05-18-2005, 08:09 PM
I've used both the Canon 100mm & 180mm Macros with good results. The 100 is probably my pick for a 20D (or even the 50mm with Life-Size Converter).