Now that I've got a DSLR, which macro lens should I buy? - Page 3

amehel0 · 04/25/2011, 08:17 AM

for alot of people it depends what they want to achieve. i have a 5d mk2. why did i go with canon? the mp e-65. nikon currently offers no alternative. if your after 1:1 then the more working distance the better. i use a 180mm lens with gives me 480mm working distance at 1:1. this means that with wider or deeper tanks you can photo things at the back. as someone pointed aperture is very important particularly in reef tanks and sps. also you may find that halides arent enough light and sometimes you need a off camera flash. for interesting photography i like to use the mp e 65 for the 5x mag you can get. although not practical in most aquarium situations but great for flowers. overall you cant go wrong with a 100mm lens. also keep in mind with extension tubes the longer focal lengths arent as effectively magnified. they also severly reduce DOF and light and they remove the infinity focus and reduce working distance.

amehel0 · 04/25/2011, 08:19 AM

also keep in mind that alot of macro lenses can double up as telephoto or portrait lenses. some of my fav shots are with my 180mm photographing non macro stuff mainly because of its beautiful BOKEH!

route66 · 06/03/2011, 08:02 AM

I have the cannon rebel hand me down from my husband and a few lens and he loves the ESO 7D with his macro lens. I ask him if that new macro lens would fit my camera he said no. I afraid to take it off his 7D So I just use his camera .LOL

BlueCorn · 06/03/2011, 08:13 AM

What model is your Rebel?

It's very likely, that he's not telling the truth.

ahebert923 · 07/26/2011, 08:22 PM

Does anyone have knowledge on any Sony lens? I got a DSLR a few years ago and would LOVE to get great tank shots.

wtildens · 10/20/2011, 10:01 PM

Just a suggestion, but if your thinking of spend 1000$+ on a lens you might want to check out Lensrental.com. i've used them several times and they are pretty good.

You can get a couple for a few days for under a 100$ (depends on which lens)

hope this helps a bit.

Ouscazz · 10/23/2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett9917

Well for Canon, the IS means Image Stabilization, so it will correct some errors for you if your hand shakes from trying to hold for a long exposure. That being said, most aquarium shots, you are going to want/ need to use a tripod. Since you will be using a tripod, IS isn't necessary, and in fact, most people say to turn IS off (VR if you are a Nikon guy like me

) when using a tripod.

I would say go for the IS version. Simply because you don't need to use your tripod anymore for shooting aquarium macros. With the IS lens, you are more able to shoot macros "on the fly". I've using one on my EOS 5D and I'm totally thrilled by it's stunning performance.

These were shot a couple of days ago, freehand.

A freehand shot of my bass guitar, pretty narrow DOF.

A freehand shot of a wild Capri lizzard, sharp and detailed.

BlueCorn · 10/23/2011, 01:20 PM

You're fooling yourself. All of those shots would have been better with a tripod or some sort of camera support.

You could probably drive your car with your feet if you tried. That doesn't mean you should.

Ouscazz · 10/23/2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy

You're fooling yourself. All of those shots would have been better with a tripod or some sort of camera support.

Probably, yes.. but nowadays I don't have to get the Manfrotto out of the closet anymore. Life has become a bit easier, isn't that what it's all about?

jim13csulb · 12/28/2011, 05:13 PM

My recommendation would be to literally buy the best quality glass you can afford. I use canon L lens and they are magnificent, Nikon has a similar line of professional series lenses. But unless your shooting for magazines, websites, or businesses those are kinda pricey for most needs. I have shot some pics using a tamaron macro. I think it was a 60mm f2. It was actually a really nice lens for what the price is.

The main thing is to simply get away from any kit lens or lens that are not "true" macro. anything with a 1:1 will work wonderfully

Misled · 12/28/2011, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim13csulb

Nikon has a similar line of professional series lenses. But unless your shooting for magazines, websites, or businesses those are kinda pricey for most needs.

They are a little more than Canon L lenses, but not by much. I have them and highly recomend them.

Pufferd300s · 01/24/2012, 12:08 AM

Get the nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AIS its one of nikons sharpest lenses it is manual focus though Idk if that would bother u

Pufferd300s · 01/24/2012, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahebert923

Does anyone have knowledge on any Sony lens? I got a DSLR a few years ago and would LOVE to get great tank shots.

You can get some really nice Minolta maxxum lenses for a good price

Ferguson1977 · 02/07/2012, 07:28 PM

I am shopping between the T3i and D5100. Since performance is so similar, I am trying to let the lens decide my decision. The 2 macro lenses I am comparing is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM versus the Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro. Both are in the $500 range. I realize the Nikon has VR but that isn't too important for macro on a tripod so my main concern is the f/2.8 versus the f/3.5 lens. I understand the difference but don't have any hands on experience between the 2 settings, so I am trying to find out if there is a big real world difference between shooting at 2.8 versus 3.5? Would I appreciate having the 2.8 or would it not be missed?

BlueCorn · 02/07/2012, 07:40 PM

f/2.8 and f/3.5 are the maximum aperture of the lens. The Canon lens listed allows 2/3rds of a "stop" more light than the Nikon you mentioned. 2/3rds of a stop isn't a lot and could easily be accounted for by adjusting your ISO or shutter speed.

Both of those lenses are very sharp. I wouldn't necessarily base the camera purchase decision, that's going to lock me into a system, on a macro lens. Buy the camera that you "like" more. Really.

Ferguson1977 · 02/07/2012, 08:16 PM

Thanks that helps alot as I am preferring the D5100 but was liking the Canon lens as it seemed more flexible.

Misled · 02/07/2012, 08:37 PM

How come you no look at the Nikon 105 2.8 macro????

Ferguson1977 · 02/07/2012, 11:22 PM

Because its 1000 dollars lol. I'd like to stay around 400-500 on a macro lens.

Misled · 02/08/2012, 08:43 AM

You can still look into a Sigma 105, or a Tamron 90. I'm not trying to sway you either way, but that's the thing about when you choose a camera body, you lock yourself into a system. For Nikon macros, look at the second post in this thread.

JBen · 02/08/2012, 09:09 AM

When it comes to macro lenses, there really isn't a lot to concern yourself when it comes to Sigma/Tamron/Nikon/Canon. Optically, all are going to be extremely good as any little flaw will be more than apparent. The Sigma 105 and 150mms are some of the most popular macro lenses. Very comparable to the N/C counter parts at much lower price points.

How "fast" do you want/need?...aka f2.8 vs f3.5mm

Well that's a personal preference that no one can really answer for you and for those of us that try...we are "biased" and predisposed based on "our" needs.

I'll admit I'm a fast glass junky. Which means if Im eyeing a lens purchase and I have a choice of getting A) thats f2.8 and B) that's f4 I will usually (not always) favor/want the faster glass and save for it if need be.

While you have options if SS is the concern (bump ISO) there are limits. I do a ton of low light and often stop action in low light so thats important. Then to I use filters a lot so again the faster the lens when I add a filter Im left with a higher SS all else equal. I also really enjoy the options for DoF and artistic choices faster glass affords. While you can replicate this in post there are limits. Basically when eyeing the Canon 24-105 f4 L and the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L I opted for the faster f2.8 because I felt ultimately it would give me more options and more options/choice the more power I have. However as I said, I am heavily biased both in terms personal preference and need.

"but"
With Macros, unless you are using for things other than Macro photography (and you will) having glass that fast is almost immaterial because you will almost always be at f11 and lower.

So how often would you open a macro lens to f2.8?
Not very.If Ive shot 10,000 images with my macro Im willing to bet less than 50 were shot at f4 or wider.

Ferguson1977 · 02/08/2012, 12:25 PM

Thanks JBen for that well worded response. It made perfect sense to me and clarified some concerns I was having.

laxing22 · 02/09/2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBen

...
So how often would you open a macro lens to f2.8?
Not very.If Ive shot 10,000 images with my macro Im willing to bet less than 50 were shot at f4 or wider.

I have a question here then. With Macro, I (and seems like many) like the Bokeh / narrow DOF shooting with a fast macro. Do you notice a loss in bokeh shooting at the slower stops?

BlueCorn · 02/09/2012, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxing22

I have a question here then. With Macro, I (and seems like many) like the Bokeh / narrow DOF shooting with a fast macro. Do you notice a loss in bokeh shooting at the slower stops?

Bokeh is a a function by depth of field. As you stop down the lens, your DOF increases. With additional DOF, those specular highlights come into focus; eliminating bokeh. Anything that changes your DOF impacts your bokeh.

BlueCorn · 02/09/2012, 09:52 AM

I often use bokeh to create a pleasing background. This image, at f/16 would've looked completely different.

http://www.binaryemulsion.com/wordpr...-merced-river/

flyfisher2 · 03/06/2012, 09:54 PM

Canon L series all the way... I switched from Nikon film to Canon DSLR several years ago and don't regret it. I read rave reviews on the Nikon bodies but you can't knock Canon glass. The L series is great.

My 24-70 lives on the 5D mark II. Awesome portraits. Very nice bokeh BlueCorn.

04/25/2011, 08:17 AM	#51
amehel0 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia Posts: 232	for alot of people it depends what they want to achieve. i have a 5d mk2. why did i go with canon? the mp e-65. nikon currently offers no alternative. if your after 1:1 then the more working distance the better. i use a 180mm lens with gives me 480mm working distance at 1:1. this means that with wider or deeper tanks you can photo things at the back. as someone pointed aperture is very important particularly in reef tanks and sps. also you may find that halides arent enough light and sometimes you need a off camera flash. for interesting photography i like to use the mp e 65 for the 5x mag you can get. although not practical in most aquarium situations but great for flowers. overall you cant go wrong with a 100mm lens. also keep in mind with extension tubes the longer focal lengths arent as effectively magnified. they also severly reduce DOF and light and they remove the infinity focus and reduce working distance. __________________ AUSSIE NATIVE PREDATORY FISH ROK!! 1100g 170g 90g 40g Current Tank Info: 170g 90g packed with aussie natives highly filtered, 40g a few natives and a few oddballs, i mainly keep predatory fish and 1100g is a pond and has barramundi and mor enatives in it

04/25/2011, 08:19 AM	#52
amehel0 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia Posts: 232	also keep in mind that alot of macro lenses can double up as telephoto or portrait lenses. some of my fav shots are with my 180mm photographing non macro stuff mainly because of its beautiful BOKEH! __________________ AUSSIE NATIVE PREDATORY FISH ROK!! 1100g 170g 90g 40g Current Tank Info: 170g 90g packed with aussie natives highly filtered, 40g a few natives and a few oddballs, i mainly keep predatory fish and 1100g is a pond and has barramundi and mor enatives in it

06/03/2011, 08:13 AM	#54
BlueCorn Retired Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,908	What model is your Rebel? It's very likely, that he's not telling the truth. __________________ Doug [I]Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made when establishing tonal relationships. ~ Ansel Adams[/I]

10/20/2011, 10:01 PM	#56
wtildens Registered Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Maryland Posts: 74	Just a suggestion, but if your thinking of spend 1000$+ on a lens you might want to check out Lensrental.com. i've used them several times and they are pretty good. You can get a couple for a few days for under a 100$ (depends on which lens) hope this helps a bit. __________________ 40 breeder mixed reef, home made LED lighting. NEW! 180 Current Tank Info: 55G reef

10/23/2011, 01:20 PM	#58
BlueCorn Retired Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,908	You're fooling yourself. All of those shots would have been better with a tripod or some sort of camera support. You could probably drive your car with your feet if you tried. That doesn't mean you should. __________________ Doug [I]Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made when establishing tonal relationships. ~ Ansel Adams[/I]

06/03/2011, 08:02 AM	#53
route66 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Simi Valley, California Posts: 103	I have the cannon rebel hand me down from my husband and a few lens and he loves the ESO 7D with his macro lens. I ask him if that new macro lens would fit my camera he said no. I afraid to take it off his 7D So I just use his camera .LOL

07/26/2011, 08:22 PM	#55
ahebert923 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 6	Does anyone have knowledge on any Sony lens? I got a DSLR a few years ago and would LOVE to get great tank shots.

12/28/2011, 05:13 PM	#60
jim13csulb Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 6	My recommendation would be to literally buy the best quality glass you can afford. I use canon L lens and they are magnificent, Nikon has a similar line of professional series lenses. But unless your shooting for magazines, websites, or businesses those are kinda pricey for most needs. I have shot some pics using a tamaron macro. I think it was a 60mm f2. It was actually a really nice lens for what the price is. The main thing is to simply get away from any kit lens or lens that are not "true" macro. anything with a 1:1 will work wonderfully

01/24/2012, 12:08 AM	#62
Pufferd300s Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: New Jersey Posts: 63	Get the nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AIS its one of nikons sharpest lenses it is manual focus though Idk if that would bother u

02/07/2012, 07:28 PM	#64
Ferguson1977 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Tampa Posts: 240	I am shopping between the T3i and D5100. Since performance is so similar, I am trying to let the lens decide my decision. The 2 macro lenses I am comparing is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM versus the Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro. Both are in the $500 range. I realize the Nikon has VR but that isn't too important for macro on a tripod so my main concern is the f/2.8 versus the f/3.5 lens. I understand the difference but don't have any hands on experience between the 2 settings, so I am trying to find out if there is a big real world difference between shooting at 2.8 versus 3.5? Would I appreciate having the 2.8 or would it not be missed?

02/07/2012, 07:40 PM	#65
BlueCorn Retired Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,908	f/2.8 and f/3.5 are the maximum aperture of the lens. The Canon lens listed allows 2/3rds of a "stop" more light than the Nikon you mentioned. 2/3rds of a stop isn't a lot and could easily be accounted for by adjusting your ISO or shutter speed. Both of those lenses are very sharp. I wouldn't necessarily base the camera purchase decision, that's going to lock me into a system, on a macro lens. Buy the camera that you "like" more. Really.

02/07/2012, 08:16 PM	#66
Ferguson1977 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Tampa Posts: 240	Thanks that helps alot as I am preferring the D5100 but was liking the Canon lens as it seemed more flexible.

02/07/2012, 08:37 PM	#67
Misled RC Mod Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Posts: 11,440 Blog Entries: 11	How come you no look at the Nikon 105 2.8 macro???? __________________ Jesse I'm not saying I'm Batman. I'm just saying nobody has ever seen me and Batman in a room together.

02/07/2012, 11:22 PM	#68
Ferguson1977 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Tampa Posts: 240	Because its 1000 dollars lol. I'd like to stay around 400-500 on a macro lens.

02/08/2012, 08:43 AM	#69
Misled RC Mod Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Posts: 11,440 Blog Entries: 11	You can still look into a Sigma 105, or a Tamron 90. I'm not trying to sway you either way, but that's the thing about when you choose a camera body, you lock yourself into a system. For Nikon macros, look at the second post in this thread. __________________ Jesse I'm not saying I'm Batman. I'm just saying nobody has ever seen me and Batman in a room together.

02/08/2012, 09:09 AM	#70
JBen Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 62	When it comes to macro lenses, there really isn't a lot to concern yourself when it comes to Sigma/Tamron/Nikon/Canon. Optically, all are going to be extremely good as any little flaw will be more than apparent. The Sigma 105 and 150mms are some of the most popular macro lenses. Very comparable to the N/C counter parts at much lower price points. How "fast" do you want/need?...aka f2.8 vs f3.5mm Well that's a personal preference that no one can really answer for you and for those of us that try...we are "biased" and predisposed based on "our" needs. I'll admit I'm a fast glass junky. Which means if Im eyeing a lens purchase and I have a choice of getting A) thats f2.8 and B) that's f4 I will usually (not always) favor/want the faster glass and save for it if need be. While you have options if SS is the concern (bump ISO) there are limits. I do a ton of low light and often stop action in low light so thats important. Then to I use filters a lot so again the faster the lens when I add a filter Im left with a higher SS all else equal. I also really enjoy the options for DoF and artistic choices faster glass affords. While you can replicate this in post there are limits. Basically when eyeing the Canon 24-105 f4 L and the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L I opted for the faster f2.8 because I felt ultimately it would give me more options and more options/choice the more power I have. However as I said, I am heavily biased both in terms personal preference and need. "but" With Macros, unless you are using for things other than Macro photography (and you will) having glass that fast is almost immaterial because you will almost always be at f11 and lower. So how often would you open a macro lens to f2.8? Not very.If Ive shot 10,000 images with my macro Im willing to bet less than 50 were shot at f4 or wider.

02/08/2012, 12:25 PM	#71
Ferguson1977 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Tampa Posts: 240	Thanks JBen for that well worded response. It made perfect sense to me and clarified some concerns I was having.

02/09/2012, 09:52 AM	#74
BlueCorn Retired Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,908	I often use bokeh to create a pleasing background. This image, at f/16 would've looked completely different. http://www.binaryemulsion.com/wordpr...-merced-river/

03/06/2012, 09:54 PM	#75
flyfisher2 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Florida Posts: 65	Canon L series all the way... I switched from Nikon film to Canon DSLR several years ago and don't regret it. I read rave reviews on the Nikon bodies but you can't knock Canon glass. The L series is great. My 24-70 lives on the 5D mark II. Awesome portraits. Very nice bokeh BlueCorn.