Macro Lens suggestions

[d0ughb0y]

hmm, I did a google search of EF 100mm vs EF-s 60mm and found a lot of discussions about it and now I am even more confused

it says, the 60mm EF-s will be like using a 100mm on 35mm film camera, but using the EF 100mm on a digital camera, would be like using a 160mm lens, and if that is the case, then the extra magnification does allow you to have a greater distance to the subject for the same image size. so it seems using a 100mm lens on a digital body (with the smaller sensor size I should say, since some digital body have the sensor size the same as film I think), would be (almost) like using a 180mm lens on a film camera body.

still confused.

 

[AquamanE]

The guy at the camera shop did tell me that the 60mm is like a 100mm on a Canon xti, but again, I dont know why.

 

[d0ughb0y]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14490355#post14490355 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AquamanE
The guy at the camera shop did tell me that the 60mm is like a 100mm on a Canon xti, but again, I dont know why.

I suppose you can test at what distance you can get a subject to full frame (top to bottom or side to side), and find out if the distance of the camera to the object is the same or not. I suppose if the 100mm distance is further (due to equivalent of 160mm), then that will be a better lens.

 

[AquamanE]

So I guess we both decided. I m going to wait for Reef Bass to post his pics.

Where have you found the best price (from a legit retailer of course)?

 

[d0ughb0y]

I think I got the right idea on my initial post that a 100mm lens will not work as 100mm on the xti. I got thrown off when TitusvilleSurfer says it will be still at 100mm.

so the factor is applied to using normal full frame lens on the APS sized frame like the xti (which is 1/1.6 times the full frame). EF-S is already adjusted to APS frame size. So a 100mm EF on xti will be like an EF-S 160mm (if it exist).

equivalent lens size as I understand it.
APS body | 35mm Body
100mm EF | 160mm EF
60mm EF-S | 100mm EF

so the thing now is, if the 100mm EF lens is good enough for a 35mm body, wouldn't you say the 60mm EF-S would give you the same functionality on xti? so why won't an equivalent 100mm lens for $100 less be just as good (and its half the size and weight 11oz vs 21 oz)? I suppose for another $100 (actually $90 on B&H price), you almost double your focal length right? There is downside to longer fixed focal length also, like you may not be able to back up further and the subject is too close to the lens.

Eddie, what is the price of the 100mm at your local shop?

 

[d0ughb0y]

.

 

[AquamanE]

Local photo shop is 530 but sonic camera. Com has it for 399 but not sure if they are legit.

 

[d0ughb0y]

Eddie, I have finally decided on 100mm as well. I just realized with my two lenses 18-55 and 55-250 ef-s, I can test the magnification at 60mm ef-s and 160mm ef-s and I definitely see the need for 160mm ef-s (or 100mm EF). (the compelling reason I am looking for).

Also, with my 18-55 ef-s, it can focus down to 10", so I can use that for now while I save up for the 100mm EF. (the 55-250 zoom minimum focus distance is 3 feet so not feasible to use for taking tank pictures)

This is a sample of pic taken using 18-55 ef-s. I think it is fairly decent.

 

[AquamanE]

Also, with my 18-55 ef-s, it can focus down to 10", so I can use that for now while I save up for the 100mm EF. (the 55-250 zoom minimum focus distance is 3 feet so not feasible to use for taking tank pictures)

Thanks for your help. I have both those lenses as well, that why I want the macro.

I have taken some decent pics with the stock lens as well.

 

[waxy]

AquamanE - Here is a link to Reef Bass's post with some of his latest work.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1591517

I use a D90 with a 105 VR Nikkor Micro Lens and love it.

I can be at an alarming distance and still take superb shots.
It could be used to take non macro distant shots as well.

For a hefty price tag I'm very satisfied.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14490702#post14490702 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AquamanE
Local photo shop is 530 but sonic camera. Com has it for 399 but not sure if they are legit.

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Sonic_Cameras

 

[dendronepthya]

I think there is some confusion in this thread about "effective focal length." People say there is a focal length multiplier because of the smaller sensors on consumer grade DSLR's. "Focal length multiplier" is a bit of a misnomer because your 100mm macro is not really giving you 160mm focal length as a 1.6x crop factor would indicate. It appears like you are getting 160mm based on the fact that the smaller sensor removes about 40% of the image compared to a full frame sensor. You are not going out any further, you're just losing the outer parts of the image.

 

[Rickinferno]

Well, I have just bought the 100mm macro lens from Canon and so far I love the details it gives. I will post pictures soon.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Wow I completely forgot about this thread sorry...I'll try to catch up.

 

[AquamanE]

I took the plunge and bought the Canon 100mm. Havent taken any pics yet since I got a prized Majestic Angel he is still very timid of me standing over tank.

Ill take pics this weekend and post.

 

[AquamanE]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14603209#post14603209 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
Wow I completely forgot about this thread sorry...I'll try to catch up.

Yes..please stick around. im sure ill need some settings advice since ive never shot with a macro lens.

 

[Rickinferno]

Yea! Yea! Me too need some advice for using this great lens !!!

 

[Rickinferno]

Here are a few shots from today with my new 100mm lens

Please leave some comments still a newbie at photography and can only improve with your critics!

 

[Reef Bass]

Nice. You're off to a great start!

I can only see the complete image data in the EXIF info on the first two. fStop and shutterspeed are lacking for me on the others.

Image #1. I can see where you're headed and I like it. It feels to me as though it should be clearer. I think the long exposure time has something to do with that. Notice how #2 is clearer and uses about 1/2 the shutterspeed. If you want that depth of field for #1 you might try upping your ISO. Be careful with that though as you'll introduce noise if you get carried away. How high is too high depends on your camera.

#3 is very nice. Clean your glass. I personally prefer "pieces of subjects" shots v. "whole subject" shots. You might try cropping tighter on an interesting area in that shot.

#4 very nice again. Adjusting the piece or the lighting would reduce the amount of dark area. It looks a bit overexposed in the upper right.

I like the poppin colors in #5, though some people prefer a less saturated look. I'd have cropped more off the right. To me either sharpness or contrast looks too high, maybe a bit of each. The focal plane is off for me. I find with zoanthids that focusing on the "mouth" is stronger visually, like focusing on the eyes of a subject.

 

[Rickinferno]

Thanks for speaking your mind reef Bass, I really appreciate it.

I am do for a water change tomorrow that is why my glass is dirty

I ll take more pictures on Sunday and will try to play around with ISO see how they come out and I ll post results here like always.

thanks again