What's your favorite lens?

W

Wrench

New member
I'm in the market for a new Macro lens. I've been into photography longer than fish tanks but now I can mix the two :) I have a bag full of good lenses but none of them are macro. I shoot with a Canon 10D so my best three options are the Canon 100mm f/2.8, Sigma 105 and the Tamron 90mm. Any advice?
 
I hear the Cannon glass is top notch, as is the Nikon. I shoot a Nikon D200 and I have the Sigma 105 and it has never dissapointed me. The bokeh is much kinder in the high end Nikon glass as I'm sure it is with the Cannon, but the Sigma cost me $400.
 
Third (or is it fourth or fifth?) on the Canon 100mm. It's an absolutely top notch lens, and I don't think Tamron or Sigma can touch it (opinion only).
 
Another vote for the Canon 100 f2.8 which also doubles as a very good portrait lens if needed. Sharpest Canon lens for the $.
 
180 f3.5 macro. You will have to pry it from my dead cold fingers before I let that one go :)

For me, that's pretty good, since I place it before my 70-200 IS. With macro lens, I have soooo much fun just around the house.
 
louist--Can I ask you a question about the 180? What's your minimum focusing distance? I have the 100mm already. What would be the benefit (if any) of also having the 180?

Thanks!

Andy
 
Thanks for the advice, looks like I'm going to be shooting for the Canon. I have a bag full of the Sigma EX lenses and they hold their own against Canon L glass. Looks like my Macro is gonna be Canon though :)
 
Andy,
The 180 really have just 1 advantage over a 100mm macro lens. It has a minimum focusing distance of 46cm from the sensor plane. The length of the lens is 18.2cm, meaning that it has a "min. focusing distance" of 27.8cm from the front lens element.

I mainly shoot insects, so the 180 help me keep my distance as not to scare the critters away.

Keep in mind that the 180 is bulky and heavy (965g) and thus unless you have a specific need for it, I would stick with the 100. In fact, I don't feel the 180 and 100 are mutually exclusive. I would prefer to shoot with a 100 if I am just shooting still life or even aquarium.

Hope that helps a little.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8673534#post8673534 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Blue Deuce
When I want to keep my distance I just slap on my Kenko extension tubes.
Click to expand...
Extension tubes are not suitable for field work if you are photographing insects or any other moving subject. This is especially true in low light condition (which is more often than not). Addition of a 25mm extension tube results in approx. 2 stops of light reduction, which is 4 times slower shutter speed to achieve the same exposure.

I use extension tubes on my macro lens only if I can't back off from the subject any more, but still too close to the subject.

Extension tubes yield minimal advantage when used on a "long" dedicated macro lens, since the increase in magnification is governed by:
Code: 
Magnification = total extension length (mm) / focal length of lens (mm)
Hence on a 100mm macro lens, 25mm of extension tube only yield 0.25x increase in magnification. On a 180mm macro lens, that only yield 0.14x more magnification which isn't worth the sacrifice of 2 stops of light.
 
louist--Thanks! The only reason I might be interested is if I can get larger images of the animals at the back of my 2' tank. It's an awful lot of money just for that, though. But, if it also could open up available shots in the garden, on hikes, etc.... :)
 
Andy, there is a support group. Aquarium photography is a sickness eh? I used to realy enjoy it. I will have to start keeping tabs in here again. The f 2.8 is a killer lense, even in a deep aquarium. I like to slap the magnifying lense's on the end of mine when i want to get back further.
I cant wait to start taking photos again.
 
Which magnifying lenses do you use? And how much do you gain at what cost? I bought the extension tube set and it's true, the amount of magnification you gain is pretty small for the cost in light.
 
I was refering to using the tubes on a 100mm vs. the 180mm which of course provides more magnification. Tubes work fine in the field. If you are taking macros you should be using a tripod for composition, manual focus and a myraid of reasons in addtion to so loss of light can be compensated either through adjustments in aperature, shutter speed or ISO. Most macro shots are taken with flash anyway and with a flash such as the 580 exposure compensation can be adjusted to fit your needs. The advantage you gain with the 180mm in reach can also be argued against the stop of light you lose from the get vs. the 100mm. But I am not by any means knocking the 180mm. It's probably the finest macro lens out there.

My figures do seem to contradict yours though in regards to using tubes.

"light loss caused by extension tubes is inversely proportional to the focal length of the original lens. A 25mm tube results in a 1 stop loss on a 50mm lens, but only a half stop loss on a 100mm lens, or a quarter stop loss on a 200mm lens."


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8673873#post8673873 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by louist
Extension tubes are not suitable for field work if you are photographing insects or any other moving subject. This is especially true in low light condition (which is more often than not). Addition of a 25mm extension tube results in approx. 2 stops of light reduction, which is 4 times slower shutter speed to achieve the same exposure.

I use extension tubes on my macro lens only if I can't back off from the subject any more, but still too close to the subject.

Extension tubes yield minimal advantage when used on a "long" dedicated macro lens, since the increase in magnification is governed by:
Code: 
Magnification = total extension length (mm) / focal length of lens (mm)
Hence on a 100mm macro lens, 25mm of extension tube only yield 0.25x increase in magnification. On a 180mm macro lens, that only yield 0.14x more magnification which isn't worth the sacrifice of 2 stops of light.
Click to expand...
 
I would recommend a canon 60mm Macro USM 2.8 or the 100mm Macro 2.8

both are great lenses for aquarium closeup photography.

Bear in mind though, that even with one of these lenses it will take some time using post-processing programs to get some truely beautiful photographs.

If you are a little tighter on budget right now, maybe you can work with th kit lense (which btw can take some stellar shots in the hands of an experienced photography)

If you end up buying a macro, you should double up your rebate right now (by purchasing a battery grip). You can save quite a bit of money!

Hope that helps
 
I bought a pack from Mikes Camera, it came with three. a 1x 2x and 3x i believe. You can stack them together to get silly close shots. Its been a while since i shot any aquariums, and now that i think about it i believe it shortens your focal length, and nocks the step down by 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Canon Lens Advice
Replies
0
Views
679
JJudge951
J
slief
Any Sony DLSR Users here? How About A6500 users?
2
Replies
38
Views
9K
slief
slief
SouthFla
Wow is macro a BLAST!
Replies
9
Views
1K
SouthFla
SouthFla
daveM100
Macro Lens
Replies
3
Views
963
3dees
3dees
Pife
Shooting under blue...
Replies
2
Views
712
Pife
Pife
Back
Top