New to macro - what to buy?

O

Ozzybound

Suspended / Banned
Messages
36
Edit My Images
No
Hello all...

I am pretty new to SLR photography at the moment, and have just come across this site - so, please allow me to pester you all with questions.

I would really like to do some macro work. I had a Sigma 70-300 on mt Canon 300D which I took some nice macro pics with. I have since traded that lens for a Tamron 28-300 which is not very good at all for macro.

I found these on ebay:-

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Macro-Close-U...3QQihZ013QQcategoryZ30070QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

and thought they would be a good way of getting into macro cheaply, allowing me to practice and decide if I want to buy a dedicated macro lens.

Then, I came across an advert on the classifieds on here for a Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. It has great reviews and I am about to jump at the chance to buy it, but first I thought I would ask opinions of its use for macro on here. Would it be a good lens to start off with? I believe it is a 1:1 lens, can anyone confirm this for me?

I am not really interested in protrait shots, what other kind of shots would this kind of lens lend itself to, other than macro?

Thanks for reading.
 
I believe that there is a thread on here about this topic exactly.

The rough answer is that screw on filter macro wotsits do work quite well and are definitely the cheapest option, but as you'd expect are not as good as a dedicated lens.

A 60mm lens is 1:1 and, pretty good for general shooting f2.8 is nice and fast so it works in low light. However it's not going to get you "half" as close as the Canon 150mm macro.

Take look at
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp
 
oldgit said:
I believe that there is a thread on here about this topic exactly.

The rough answer is that screw on filter macro wotsits do work quite well and are definitely the cheapest option, but as you'd expect are not as good as a dedicated lens.

A 60mm lens is 1:1 and, pretty good for general shooting f2.8 is nice and fast so it works in low light. However it's not going to get you "half" as close as the Canon 150mm macro.

Take look at
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp
Click to expand...


Thanks for that.

I had seen 150mm lenses, but they are a bit pricey for me at the moment.

Then again, I don't want to buy a used 60mm lens for macro if it turns out not to be capable of what I want to do with it.

Looking at the reviews, it seems the 60 would be a good choice for me a the moment all things considered - ie new to macro ( and SLR in general ), and the chance of a well priced used lens to cut my teeth on.

Would a set of tubes like these:-

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MACRO-EXTENSI...1QQihZ014QQcategoryZ30070QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

coupled with the 60mm Canon lens offer more magnification - or are they a 'cheap and nasty' option?

Thanks.
 
Ozzybound said:
Thanks for that.

I had seen 150mm lenses, but they are a bit pricey for me at the moment.

Then again, I don't want to buy a used 60mm lens for macro if it turns out not to be capable of what I want to do with it.

Looking at the reviews, it seems the 60 would be a good choice for me a the moment all things considered - ie new to macro ( and SLR in general ), and the chance of a well priced used lens to cut my teeth on.

Would a set of tubes like these:-

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MACRO-EXTENSI...1QQihZ014QQcategoryZ30070QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

coupled with the 60mm Canon lens offer more magnification - or are they a 'cheap and nasty' option?

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Tubes are a good option to get closer, but the DO greatly impact the DOF you get.
 
Thanks.

Do you know what the macro on the Canon 60mm lens would be like in comparison to that of my old 70-300 Sigma?

I ask, as I was impressed with what I managed to shoot macro-wise with that lens. If the Canon can do similar / better then it's a no brainer for me at the moment. I'll snap it up.
 
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, if I was to stand say 40cm from an object and shoot it, is there enough range on the lens to focus it properly. Then crop the shot in the computer? I realise I would lose quality in the picture this way. Or, will it only focus at it's optimum range from the macro subject?

I have my heart set on a macro lens now. I want to make sure I make the right choice. We are travelling to the Amazon Jungle in October, I would love to be able to capture some of the amazing insects and plants. Having said that, as I am new to the subject - and don't know how long it will hold my interest for after my travels, I don't want to spend a fortune on a lens that may not get much subsequant use.

Ideally I am looking at a top end budget of about £200 and dont mind buying second hand if I can find something.

Would you have any suggestions for a macro lens in that price range that would suit the kind of stuff I would like to photograph?

Thanks.
 
The lens will focus at any range, but obviously the further you are from the subject the further away from a 1:1 ratio you get. By all accounts the Canon 60mm is a very good lens, but if you are definitely looking at photographing small insects and the like, it may be worth looking for a second hand Sigma 150mm, Sigma 105mm or even Tamron 90mm.

On the other hand, if you're getting the 60mm at a decent price, you could always buy it and sell it on again for almost no loss if you find it dosn't suit your needs.
 
TomB said:
The lens will focus at any range, but obviously the further you are from the subject the further away from a 1:1 ratio you get. By all accounts the Canon 60mm is a very good lens, but if you are definitely looking at photographing small insects and the like, it may be worth looking for a second hand Sigma 150mm, Sigma 105mm or even Tamron 90mm.

On the other hand, if you're getting the 60mm at a decent price, you could always buy it and sell it on again for almost no loss if you find it dosn't suit your needs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - I'll have a look and see what those other lenses retail for. I have been looking for the sigma 150, but it's way over my budget.

Cheers.
 
I have found the Tamron 90 for a little more that the Canon 60 in the classifieds, and the Sigma 105 is a little more again. The Sigma 150 is too expensive for me.

I have checked out some reviews of the Tamron, it seems highly rated.

I'll start a new post, see if someone can directly compare the Canon 60, Tamron 90 & Sigma 105.

Cheers.
 
"A 60mm lens is 1:1 and, pretty good for general shooting f2.8 is nice and fast so it works in low light. However it's not going to get you "half" as close as the Canon 150mm macro."

Being a Nikon user I am not that conversant with Canon stuff unless I look it up. However I think both lenses closest focusing is 1:1 or life size on the sensor as are most macro lenses these days. Therefore the image size (and depth of field using the same f-number) at 1:1 magnification will be no different between the two lenses.

What will be different is the field of view and working distance. The 60mm will have to be a lot closer to the subject to get 1:1 (or life size) on the sensor than the 150mm. Also the 60mm being a wider angle lens will show more width of background than the 150mm which has a narrower angle of view, but set at 1:1 the principle subject will be the same size with both.

As you will see from my signature I use both a 60mm Micro Nikkor and a 70mm-180mm Micro Nikkor which cover the fields of both the above lenses. The longer lens stays on the camera most, but hand holding without flash you do have to use a higher shutter speed with a longer focal length, but then have more working room.

On 35mm film the classic insect lens was the 105mm rather than the 60mm because it gave more working room and did not put them to flight so easily. With digital you have a bonus however because due to the smaller APS sized sensor the crop factor on these lenses (1.5 for Nikon and 1.6 for Canon) means they behave like a longer lens would on 35mm film.

Therefore a 60mm on the APS sized Canon digital's would give you the same angle of view as a 96mm on 35mm film and have the same working distance as the longer focal length, only 9mm off the old 105mm "insect lens" on 35mm film. The 150mm will give you the same angle of view and working distance as a 240mm on 35mm film.

Close up lenses or filters are pretty good but image quality usually falls of to their edges. This is not always a disadvantage as in macro work the subject tends to be placed more centrally than in conventional photography, so slight peripheral unsharpness often just highlights the subject.

all the best in your choice,

DaveW
 
DaveW said:
"A 60mm lens is 1:1 and, pretty good for general shooting f2.8 is nice and fast so it works in low light. However it's not going to get you "half" as close as the Canon 150mm macro."

Being a Nikon user I am not that conversant with Canon stuff unless I look it up. However I think both lenses closest focusing is 1:1 or life size on the sensor as are most macro lenses these days. Therefore the image size (and depth of field using the same f-number) at 1:1 magnification will be no different between the two lenses.

What will be different is the field of view and working distance. The 60mm will have to be a lot closer to the subject to get 1:1 (or life size) on the sensor than the 150mm. Also the 60mm being a wider angle lens will show more width of background than the 150mm which has a narrower angle of view, but set at 1:1 the principle subject will be the same size with both.

As you will see from my signature I use both a 60mm Micro Nikkor and a 70mm-180mm Micro Nikkor which cover the fields of both the above lenses. The longer lens stays on the camera most, but hand holding without flash you do have to use a higher shutter speed with a longer focal length, but then have more working room.

On 35mm film the classic insect lens was the 105mm rather than the 60mm because it gave more working room and did not put them to flight so easily. With digital you have a bonus however because due to the smaller APS sized sensor the crop factor on these lenses (1.5 for Nikon and 1.6 for Canon) means they behave like a longer lens would on 35mm film.

Therefore a 60mm on the APS sized Canon digital's would give you the same angle of view as a 96mm on 35mm film and have the same working distance as the longer focal length, only 9mm off the old 105mm "insect lens" on 35mm film. The 150mm will give you the same angle of view and working distance as a 240mm on 35mm film.

Close up lenses or filters are pretty good but image quality usually falls of to their edges. This is not always a disadvantage as in macro work the subject tends to be placed more centrally than in conventional photography, so slight peripheral unsharpness often just highlights the subject.

all the best in your choice,

DaveW
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for the reply.

I think I am set on a Tamron 90mm now, they seem to get very good reviews and they are somewhere near my price range. I'll look out for a used one over the next few weeks whilst I have a play with the cheap magnifyers I bought on ebay. They have not come yet.

Cheers.
 
DaveW said:
The 90mm will give you the equivalent angle of view and working room of a 144mm on full frame 35mm film cameras, so you should have ample working room.

There is a review here of the Nikon version, which is same as the Canon one except having a different lens mount:-

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tamron/90_macro/index.html

DaveW
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - yet another good review of the lens. There are plenty of reviews praising it.

I just need to get out to the shops now and find one for a good price. In fact, I may post a wanted thread for one. Although, if it's that good I cant imagine many people wanting to part with theirs.
 
oldgit said:
A 60mm lens is 1:1 and, pretty good for general shooting f2.8 is nice and fast so it works in low light. However it's not going to get you "half" as close as the Canon 150mm macro.
Click to expand...

Canon 150mm? No such thing.

All "proper" macro lenses do 1:1, the longer the focal length the further away from the subject you can be. The exception is the Canon MP-E which does 1 to 5x lifesize and so is macro only.

For close-up filters do a search for the Canon 500D close-up filter. They're around £60 but the quality compared to ther cheap ones on ebay, etc. is in another league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top