Macro Lens suggestions

AquamanE

AquamanE

Active member
Ive got a Cannon xti and want to take macros of the tank.

Went to see lenses today, they didnt have the 100mm 2.8, but the guy was showing me a 60mm. After much discussion he is ordering me those small lenses that "create macro". In testing the 60mm i was not impressed when compared to what I see here. Their is a $100 differnce to an already expensive toy.

What do you guys think. My goal is to see things closer, and take pics when trading, selling SPS.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14482438#post14482438 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
Get the 100mm f/2.8

The 180mm f/3.5 would be even better if you want to talk about price difference.
Click to expand...

thats defin out of my league :eek1:

What do you think of the filter/lens gadgets sometimes used. I can afford the 100mm, but really am not much of a photographer, but again do like to take pics of tank and monitor growtrh as well as sharing here on RC.
 
You only use filters if you want a very specific effect. I never-EVER use "UV" filters. The 100mm f/2.8 is fine as it is. I predict two outcomes:
A) You buy the 100mm f/2.8 Macro and say, "wow this thing is sick!".
B) You buy another macro and a few months down the road wish you didn't.

It really is that much better than everything else competing against it.
 
Get the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. I have it and I love it. I could go on but I'd basically be repeating myself. Later today I'm going to be posting some shots I took using that lens which should help convince you.

TS, what's your beef with UV filters? I stuck one on the end of my macro lens mostly as a lens protector.
 
I completely agree with TVSurfer.. just like with any hobby: "The poor man pays twice." Buy the right one from the start and you shouldn't have to buy again in the future. The Canon 250D and 500D diopters + Kenko tubes are viable option, but they cannot be compared to a true dedicated Macro lens, image-quality-wise.

The difference between 60mm and 100mm is working distance. With a 60mm, you will have to get REALLY close to your subject to get a 1:1 composition. When taking pictures of skittish critters (like a grasshopper, for example) this is sometimes not an option. Whereas with a 100mm, you can shoot from a comfortable distance without scaring away the subject.

As for the UV filter... Any kind of glass that you stick in front of your lens will somehow affect image quality.. there is no point in spending a ton of money on excellent lens only to put an el-cheapo UV filter in front of it. I guess that's where he's coming from.
 
Makes sense about the cheap glass filter over the yummy glass lens. I'll take it off. I'm usually using the lens hood anyway. When I'm not I'm nervous about the end of the lens impacting things, like my tank which would be a double plus ungood.
 
would the 100mm macro lens have a different focal length if used on the xti (what is the conversion factor)? whereas since the 60mm is an EF-S lens, it will be 60mm if used on xti. so the 100mm would make the object look a lot closer compared to the 60mm without getting too close to the object? I can see the advantage of the 100mm would be the ability to get closer image of the coralites/polyp extensions.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14486877#post14486877 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef Bass
TS, what's your beef with UV filters?
Click to expand...

Think of the 100mm macro as a starfire glass tank. You don't want to scratch the starfire so you cover the outside with a layer of Plexiglas. Even though the starfire is shielded...doesn't this seem like a waste? A lens hood offers far more protection than a UV filter IMO.

A) Most things that bump into a lens won't make it past the hood.
B) If you drop the lens, it is a widely excepted belief that a UV filter will not offer as much protection as a lens hood.
C) UV filters are like wearing glasses. A lens hood is like wearing a hat. Which would you rather have with the sun in your eyes?
D) Our lenses (especially L's but 100mm macro included) are sturdier than you think. They can take a beating and come out unscathed. Your UV filter is much more likely to be scratched than the front of your lens. In the off chance that the front of your lens does get scratched, the DOF will likely make it unnoticeable.

The only thing a UV filter protects against that a lens hood cannot IMO is:

Kid fingers! They all want to touch the camera!

If they touch the UV filter you can unscrew it. Of course now you don't have a filter.

If you never had a filter, you could use the back of your shirt to whip it away. A little bottle of lens cleaner is with me always. One $2.50 bottle lasts me more than a year.

You could say "well I could just whip the UV filter off". Yeah and you could just whip the lens off...so what is the point of a UV filter?

All it does IMO is make the image quality worse. There are high quality "starfire" UV filters but expect to pay $300-$600 for each one. I'll use a hood. It's better anyway.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14488945#post14488945 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by d0ughb0y
would the 100mm macro lens have a different focal length if used on the xti (what is the conversion factor)?
Click to expand...
NO. The focal length is 100mm whether the lens is on a 1DsMkIII, a 1DmkIII, a 5DmkII, 50D, 450D, or 1000D.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14488945#post14488945 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by d0ughb0y
whereas since the 60mm is an EF-S lens, it will be 60mm if used on xti.
Click to expand...
Yes it will still be 60mm. It would be 60mm on a 5D to, it just breaks the camera if you try to mounted it. Nasty side effect.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14488945#post14488945 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by d0ughb0y
so the 100mm would make the object look a lot closer compared to the 60mm without getting too close to the object? I can see the advantage of the 100mm would be the ability to get closer image of the coralites/polyp extensions.
Click to expand...
Alright...this can be a very difficult concept to grasp, so pay attention kids. If you don't understand this...you don't understand photography...stay tuned.
 
I thought a non EF-S lens when used on a digital body will have a longer effective focal length because the sensor on the digital camera is smaller than film. The 100mm macro lens is EF and not EF-S right? (I just checked B&H and there is no EF-S 100mm macro).
 
ok, I think I got it..

so EF 100mm will still have 100mm focal length.
but EF-S 60mm will actually giv ethe equivalent of 100mm focal length compared to 35mm camera by using the 1.6x factor. (60x1.6=96mm)

so there really is no difference in image magnification between the EF 100 and EF-S 60 then right? then I don't see any advantage to getting the EF-100 over the EF-S 60, at least one that is obvious to me. perhaps someone can clarify or explain better why get the EF 100 over the EF-s 60?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14488532#post14488532 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by xtm


The difference between 60mm and 100mm is working distance. With a 60mm, you will have to get REALLY close to your subject to get a 1:1 composition. When taking pictures of skittish critters (like a grasshopper, for example) this is sometimes not an option. Whereas with a 100mm, you can shoot from a comfortable distance without scaring away the subject.
Click to expand...

considering the EF-S 60 will have the equivalent focal length of 100mm, I don't see why you can get a better working distance with EF 100mm.

Besides, the minimum focus distance of EF-S 60 is less than 8" while that of EF 100 is 12", so I think EF-S 60 is better (?)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14489523#post14489523 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by d0ughb0y
considering the EF-S 60 will have the equivalent focal length of 100mm, I don't see why you can get a better working distance with EF 100mm.

Besides, the minimum focus distance of EF-S 60 is less than 8" while that of EF 100 is 12", so I think EF-S 60 is better (?)
Click to expand...

When I tried the 60mm at the photo shop I had to get very close to the object to focus. Like you sat 6-8 inches. I have a 24" deep tank so how would I focus things midway to back of tank.? Sonds to me the 100mm is a better argument.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14486877#post14486877 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef Bass
Get the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. I have it and I love it. I could go on but I'd basically be repeating myself. Later today I'm going to be posting some shots I took using that lens which should help convince you.

TS, what's your beef with UV filters? I stuck one on the end of my macro lens mostly as a lens protector.
Click to expand...

Please advise me of the post when you put up your pics so i can check it out.
 
Eddie,

The focusing distance is just that, the minimum distance you can still focus on the object (any further distance will focus, but not closer).
Say you have two lenses exactly 100mm focal length, but one has min focus distance of 8" (lens1) and the other 12" (lens2).
with lens2, the closest image you can take is whatever size you get at 12".
with lens1, since you can get closer, you can get a larger (more close up) image.

so lens1 can do what lens2 can do, but not the other way around.

so the EF-S 60mm lens can focus on objects as close as 8" or greater, but the EF 100mm can only focus on objects as close as 12" and greater, but not closer. So you should have been able to focus at your object using EF-s 60mm at 12", but you certainly cannot focus on an object at 8" with the EF 100mm. I suppose if your subjects are all at distance greater than 12", then either lens should work. I am also deciding on which one, and still looking for that compelling reason to get the 100m over the 60mm.
 
Last edited:
What you say above I understand. Keep in mind im a photography Neandrothal. :o

Would the 100mm not allow you to more of a "close up", ie more details.?
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by d0ughb0y
so the 100mm would make the object look a lot closer compared to the 60mm without getting too close to the object? I can see the advantage of the 100mm would be the ability to get closer image of the coralites/polyp extensions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Titusville Surfer: Alright...this can be a very difficult concept to grasp, so pay attention kids. If you don't understand this...you don't understand photography...stay tuned.



******Actually you stated the same thing i just did and Titusville Surfer replied but I did not understand his reply. Was he being sarcastic, fecisious??? Is he agreeing with your statement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Fleece filter bypass problems (Innovitech X filter)
Replies
1
Views
347
Vinny Kreyling
Vinny Kreyling
Emanuel92
What lighting for S. haddoni and E. quadricolor?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
D
how often do you feed your tank?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Dustin07
D
305 Steve
Steve's Reef Casa
Replies
13
Views
1K
Dustin07
D
Paul B
How Fish are Different from most of us
Replies
1
Views
1K
Paul B
Paul B
Back
Top