Best lens for Flower photography

T

Tmonster78

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I'm new to photography and I want to try flower photography.

I just bought a Canon EOS REBEL X SLR camera that uses 35mm film.

The lens I have right now is a Magnicon MC 28-70 MACRO lens but it needs a lens filter and a front lens cap not a huge deal but I have no idea what kind of filter to get for it or if the lens it's self will work for what I want to use it for.


I'm also looking at a newer Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 STM lens but I'm not sure if it will work on my older camera.


Any help will be greatly appreciated.
 
Hi and welcome to TP

Some ground to cover in your questions......that need more information from you.

The Canon EOS Rebel X was fist sold in the USA in November 1993 so you have a 30 year old film camera body targeted at the consumer market.................does it work fully & well?

As for the lens, was this supplied to you with the camera?

As for flower photography:-
Are you talking about fields of flowers, bunches of flowers or close up macro 'frame filling' images of flowers?

PS the limited info I could find about Magnicon is that they do not appear to be Auto Focus but Manual Focus lenses and I suspect that such a lens is nothing more than a paperweight!
Edit ~ I have found a couple of references to it being AF but those two references were for Minolta and Olympus..............is it the same with the Canon EF mount that you have.....perhaps post some pictures of your lens?
 
Last edited:
Hi and welcome to TP.

Firstly an innocent question; why are you choosing to shoot with a very old poor film camera, mated to a terrible lens (note you might have a very good reason - but I’m lost for one)?

You’ve just discovered one of photography’s terrible marketing lies. Zoom lenses are often labelled ’macro’, when they’re not even close.

Technically Macro lenses are capable of rendering an object at life size (1:1) or larger, on the film (or sensor). Simply put, if you photograph a coin at max magnification, the coin should fit perfectly on the negative over the image.

Typically less expensive macro lenses are >90mm allowing some distance between camera and subject. There’s plenty of old Tamron/Sigma examples for not too much money.
 
Yes the camera is a 30 year old camera it's in pretty good shape it almost looks brand new.

Not really sure yet myself I was kind of hoping there's a lens that would be the best of both worlds.

The Lens I bought myself and the one I have says it's an AF lens it has a switch on the side of it that has M and AF on it as well.
 
Hi and welcome.

A lot hangs on what sort of picture you want and from what distance you can or want to shoot from.

Back when I had DSLR's I liked my Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. It was as far as I know a true macro lens rather than one which focuses a bit closer than you'd expect it too. The reason I liked it was that it allowed me to take pictures from a distance which gave a (to me) nice perspective.

I think you should think about the final picture you want to end up with and work back from that and one thing which I would recommend you think about is the perspective you want as a 50mm and a longer lens will need to be used at different distances and will give different perspectives.
 
The reason is the camera is the same age as myself and I could afford it and I knew when I bought the lens it was crap but it was cheap and it fit the camera.

I'm not looking for high resolution pictures from it but decent pictures that I can be happy with the end result.
 
The bit you need to answer most in order for someone to help is:

Box Brownie said:
As for flower photography:-
Are you talking about fields of flowers, bunches of flowers or close up macro 'frame filling' images of flowers?
Click to expand...

As for the camera, it probably wasn't impressive 30 years ago, so the question then becomes do you have to use THIS camera or do you want to just make good pictures?

I'm not looking for high resolution pictures from it but decent pictures that I can be happy with the end result.

That may not be possible.
 
Last edited:
I would say bunches of flowers and maybe close up macro but kind of doubt it but you never know.

That's the other reason why I was looking at a newer lens that way when I get more money and if I like the hobby I can upgrade to a better and newer DSLR camera in the future and have the lens I like on it.

Right now it's about what I can afford and still be able to get decent pictures out of it.
 
I am seriously looking at a Pentax K-500 DSLR with a 18-55mm lens.

Just wondering if that would be the better way to go I was thinking a new lens but than I started looking at new cameras.
 
The one question not asked or addressed....

How are the pictures you have taken of flowers already turn out? If deficient, in what way have they disappointed you?
 
Some other thoughts.....

Film
On the surmise that you are getting them developed and printed commercially, unless you are going to scan them (to share with distant friends and online forums such as TP) they will only be for your enjoyment.

Digital
Have you got post processing (editing) software on your PC?
 
I haven't tried anything with it as of yet as I just got the camera and the lens.

The camera I do have which I did use a fair bit for everything is a FUJI Film XP 120 it was a great camera with 16 mega pixels but lately has been giving me a bit of an issue with talking with the computer and the picture quality is lacking as of late with it as well.

Which is what sent me into looking at cameras in the first place and in doing so I came across the film camera I now have.

As for getting the film developed I was thinking commercially and I only plan on having them for myself to enjoy and unless of course I take one that happens to be worth sharing.

As for computer software that's way out of what I'm capable of doing I'm not all that good with computers.
 
Tmonster78 said:
The camera I do have which I did use a fair bit for everything is a FUJI Film XP 120
Click to expand...

You can probably take the memory card out & use it directly in your computer or with a card reader.

Tmonster78 said:
I am seriously looking at a Pentax K-500 DSLR with a 18-55mm lens.
Click to expand...

That would be an easier place to start. I wouldn't suggest investing heavily in Pentax for the future because they are a very niche and minor brand, but as an outfit to start learning on it has a lot to commend it. Just don't pay too much.

However, with some exceptions, only half the effort that goes into making a photograph is expended before the shutter button is pressed. It's normal to do *some* processing on a photo after taking it. Compact cameras and phones will often do some of this internally, so presenting a bright & contrasty image that looks more exciting than otherwise. In the 'bad old' days of film cameras a lot of people would be very disappointed with their prints, because they'd just be bashed out through a machine, so appear dull & flat. Otherwise dull images can sometimes come alive with the right processing....

So now it's much easier to process on computer, but it still requires care. Jokes about polishing turds or rolling them in glitter not withstanding, if you want to take pictures and move forwards then it's a skill set worth learning.


Magnicon lens - looks like this?

Magnicon 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 MC A-mount lens info

Magnicon 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 MC A-mount lens detail page with owners reviews and reference to most useful information about the lens
www.dyxum.com www.dyxum.com

I've seen suggestions that this may have been made by Tamron (so not necessarily completely horrible) or Cosina (Yes, completely horrible from that era). I currently still own 1 cheap 28-70 (branded Centon) that I bought in the 80s, and it's just garbage. No idea why I keep it, other than to remind myself not to buy garbage again in the future - it was £30 new, and overpriced at that even now.
 
Last edited:
My card reader went a few years ago and I've never replaced it.

As for the camera I ended up buying the Pentax K-500 from my local camera shop it was a little more than what I wanted to spend right now but I found out how much it costs to develop film, I can't believe it costs almost $50 to get film developed now.

So I figure it will save money long term.

Yes my lens kind of looks like that but mine has a little switch where the red dot is that's the only difference.
 
Tmonster78 said:
I can't believe it costs almost $50 to get film developed now.
Click to expand...
That’s why I’d asked if there was a good reason to be using a film camera.

For some people - there’s a joy in using film v digital, but for ‘normal’ people the cost and inconvenience are just a cost and an inconvenience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top