macro lens

[CLARKO]

Hi
Iam about to change my gear and have been to the park to take some test shots before selling, makesure its all in order.

i have always been uninpressed with my telephoto shots very soft very poor generaly really.

the lens i have been using is a tamron 70-300 total cheapo but i would expect to be making out the image i was taking

now for the question which is a complete newbie question apologies in advance.

the lens in question is 70 300 but a macro. In the past i just assumed 300mm would be good for telephoto wether macro or not.

i realise the true purpose of a macro lens is for well macro, but does that mean it is poor at telephoto in the 300mm range.

cheers

john

 

[billybob99]

Hi the tamron is not a "true" macro lens as it only goes to 1:2 rather than 1:1 in a true macro but should be fine as a telephoto why not put up some shots with the exif intact. When shooting at 300mm are you using a tripod or hand held and what shutter speed are you getting rule of thumb if handheld is keep shutter speed above focal length to avoid shake I.e at 300mm shutter speed above 1/300. I've never used the tamron but for the money it's rated quite good. If you want to do macro you'd be better off investing in a true macro lens

 

[HoppyUK]

There is no such thing as a pukka macro zoom - they are all primes. It's a gimmicky 'marketing' term.

TBH, the problem is that Tamron 70-300mm is bundled into a lot of cheap kits and it is not very good. At 300mm is it rubbish :thumbsdown:

 

[highpriest]

TBH, the problem is that Tamron 70-300mm is bundled into a lot of cheap kits and it is not very good. At 300mm is it rubbish :thumbsdown:

Agreed - I used the Tamron 70-300 for a few days. It was a truly awful lens :shake:

Cheers
HighPriest

 

[CLARKO]

hi guys

thanks for that i thought it was not doing very well, even on full auto so not all my fault as it usualy is.

just to clarify for my personal improvement a true quality macro at 300mm could be used as a telephoto? its just the tamron is a poor version alround,and not really a true macro at all they retail for 99 quid so cant expect to much really i suppose.

hoppy as i said in equipment i plan to get 60d put a 70-200l f4 and put a 1.4tc on it i think thats the best set up i can afford at the minute.

cheers

john

 

[HoppyUK]

hi guys

thanks for that i thought it was not doing very well, even on full auto so not all my fault as it usualy is.

just to clarify for my personal improvement a true quality macro at 300mm could be used as a telephoto? its just the tamron is a poor version alround,and not really a true macro at all they retail for 99 quid so cant expect to much really i suppose.

hoppy as i said in equipment i plan to get 60d put a 70-200l f4 and put a 1.4tc on it i think thats the best set up i can afford at the minute.

cheers

john

The generally accepted definition of a macro lens is that it is specifically designed for close working and will focus unaided down to a magnification ratio of 1:1. That's life size, so if you photograph a coin say that is 15mm across, the image will appear 15mm across on the sensor.

They are always primes (not zooms) and start at around 50mm, most are around 100mm, and one or two are up to 180mm. They can be used for normal picture taking too.

There are other ways of shooting 'macro' with a regular lens, such as extension tubes, a supplementary close-up lens, or an adapter which reverses the lens back to front on the camera. These options are cheaper, and some work better than others.