Ok I'm looking at getting a new DSLR & this is the lens I'm going to get:

http://www.adorama.com/SG1770EOS.html?searchinfo=sigma+17-70

Now mind you, this lens isnt going to be soley just for macro shots & I can only afford 1 lens right now.

How well will this lens work to take good up close macro shots of nano tanks, corals, inverts etc?

the max magnification of that lens is 1:2.3 - true macro starts at 1:1. if you're interested in real macros, a lens like this would be a better jumping off point:

http://www.adorama.com/SG10528DEOS.html?se...nfo=sigma+macro

Hmm. Thats getting up there in price for me.

So you're saying that lens would give me much better macro, but how would it do for a "normal everyday" lens just shooting other random photography things?

I was going with that other Sigma because it seemed to be a pretty good "universal" starting lens...

I'm also looking for a Canon 40D body if you know of any good deals... (or another company that may have a killer deal going on right now)

Also someone else on another reef forum suggested this one for that price range:

http://www.adorama.com/TM9028NEOS.html

How does it compare to the one you suggested?

I see there are a lot of 40D bodies on ebay for $300-$500 to be had & most of them are in mint condition. Its just a matter of catching the right deal...

And most people who buy DSLR cameras do baby them, so the odds are there to get a good camera off ebay.

the tamron is a great lens as well.

the first lens you linked to would be useful for everyday shooting as well as tank shots. you can always crop the images to 1:1.

what are the real differences between the one you linked to & the Tamron?

Regardless neither one of those are able to be "universal" day to day and also take pretty good macros like the first one I linked to?

I may even look for a good deal on a particular lens... is there anything I should take into consideration when buying a lens off there?

Should I still be looking for the same lens on ebay, or perhaps be able to upgrade to a better lens that is a great deal, still within my price range?

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_e...05+vs+tamron+90

and yes, those lenses are specialized - they work well as telephotos, especially as macro telephotos, but the reach is just too far for everyday shooting. if you can only afford one lens period, the one your first linked to is a good choice.

Hmm. Well perhaps if I search enough & can get lucky I can get a mint body for a great price & get the Sigma every day lens & also perhaps one of these macros on ebay also for right around my budget.

Worse case scenario I buy the body off ebay & get the lens from the place I linked to.

But thanks for the help.

Why are the lens' you linked to considered "medium macros"? Thats all that is needed to get great coral detail?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-17-70mm-f-2-8-4-...=item2c53024a3c

What about this deal?

He says that its the "older" version of the DC macro & doesnt have has OS and HSM

Is this the same lens that I linked to before for $369? Or was I linking to the newer version? Should I scoop this deal up?

those lenses get you 1:1 magnification from a few feet away. short macros (50mm or so) get full magnification from much shorter distances, too short for some tanks, and long macros mean you have to be much further away from the subject than most people have room for in their homes.

Nice so the medium is just right for what we do then

Someone on Canon forums has offered me this deal:

I'm selling my 40d in perfect condition w/ the 28-135 IS/ and cannon battery grip. for $1000.00 shipped. Not a scratch on it ..body or lens. I kept it in the canon armor. I'll throw that in as well. Have all software/strap/and paper work. I'll even throw my Tamrac Digital backpack.. also in mint condition.

I assume this is a good deal as there seem to be a lot of extras.

But how does the lens he has compare to the one I first linked to?

Is it also a good "Every day" lens?

Is it also better for macro shots compared to the Sigma 17-70mm?

The lens would be a pretty good all around lens but lacking the wide end (focal length below 28mm). Not sure how good it would be for macro tho.
I just picked up a Canon 60mm 2.8 macro and played with it for a little while and really enjoy it. It also shoots portraits very sharp.
Canon Link

The 28-135 is a great every day lens (and a great starter lens). That's about what I paid for my 40D + a 28-135 and I don't have the battery grip, but here recently 40D prices have plummeted.

Yeah, my 28-135mm is my main general purpose lens.

hmm. I'm just torn right now about now buying the macro first. The only thing that is really stopping me is my reef tank isn't even up right now. So I'd have to use it on my friends, which isn't bad, I could just use it more if my tank was up. And that's a few months away.

I am looking for a great deal on a 40D body, so where exactly is "here" that I can find a good deal on one?

www.photography-on-the.net/forums

ok thanks I'll get on there and start searching for a deal.

I should also mention that I am taking Intro to Digital Photography I at college, so as much as I'd like a straight macro first, I think the more every day lens would be better suited for the class.



ok thanks I'll get on there and start searching for a deal.

I should also mention that I am taking Intro to Digital Photography I at college, so as much as I'd like a straight macro first, I think the more every day lens would be better suited for the class.

i have a canon 28-135mm f/3.5- 5.9 is USM for sale if anyone is interested. ($275. shipped)

A macro lens is very much a specialty lens, so unless you're only planning on doing macro photography the 28-135 is a much better deal for you to begin with.

I'm going to go with the 17-77mm Sigma & think.

Is the 105mm the best for macro shots?

Basically the higher the mm the higher the magnification right? Thats why the 105mm would be better because it can get close magnification of the corals?

The higher the focal length (mm), the more magnification relative to where the body is.
(The below #'s are made up)
For example, from 4 feet away from your tank with a 30 mm focal length, you might see your whole tank through the lens. With a 100mm focal length, you would be able to see a smaller section of the tank, but it would appear larger.

For macro purposes though, focal length does not really matter. What matters is how big of an image the lens projects on the sensor. For example, my 100mm macro's magnification is 1:1 at 1'. What that means is that when I focus on an object 1' away from the sensor, the image portrayed on the sensor is the same size as an object is in real life. The only thing the focal length does is give you more working distance between you and your subject at minimum focus distance (1:1 magnification)

The below quote explains it a bit clearer


FWIW, I have the Canon 100mm Macro and love it.

So the 105mm Sigma has the true 1:1 ratio I want for good macro reef shots?

The 105mm would give me more detail up close than the 90mm Tamron right?

Seems 40D bodies are going for 500-600 depending on how quick you can jump on them. It would be nice to pick up a mint used lens too.

The description says:

"The minimum focusing distance of 31.2cm (12.2in) is capable of macro photography with a maximum magnification of 1:1."

So does that mean I have to be at least a foot away from the tank/piece of coral when taking pictues?

unless its a super deep tank are you actually putting the lens right up to the tank?

Sorry-
Let me explain focal length again.
Let's say that we want to take a picture of tree. If we take a picture from 20 feet away with a 30mm lens, we see the whole tree in the picture. If we take a picture from the same spot with a 100mm lens, we see a portion of the trunk. In this example the longer focal length lets us see the bark in greater detail. That's different when it comes to macro work.

Macro work gets its detail from the fact that the subject appears on the sensor at nearly lifesize. When we look at the picture, we see the object at 4x6" or whatever resolution we're looking at it in. We can see details that the naked eye normally wouldn't.


The thing is that the MFD is measured from the sensor.

For example, I own the 100mm macro, which is approximately 5" long. The sensor is approximately 1" from the rear of the lens. The MFD of the 100mm macro is approximately 12". By subtracting the length of the lens and distance that the sensor is from the rear of the lens from the MFD, we can get the Minimum Working Distance (MWD), which for the Canon 100mm Macro is approximately 6". This means that we can photograph objects no closer than 6" from the end of the lens. This in turn means that in order to achieve maximum magnification (which generally is as I explained before; the object appears on the sensor the same size that it is in real life) you need an object right around that 6" mark.

Typically, I have my lens pretty much on the glass when taking 1:1 macro shots. Anything deeper than 6" in the tank won't be shot @ 1:1. A collapsible rubber hood can be a nice accessory when taking shots where your lens has to be up against the glass.

The 105mm Sigma and 90mm Tamron would give you the same detail when up close - the sigma has another inch of MWD, which means that you'll be able to get 1:1 shots of corals deeper in your tank. In general, longer focal lengths will give you longer working distances.

The 90mm Tamron runs about $300ish used, while the Canon 100mm USM runs about $415 used. If you can save or scrape up the extra $115, I'd highly recommend it. The extra inch of working distance will be useful as will the fact that the canon lens is an internal focusing lens. The Canon lens is also a bit better when used as a portrait lens (if that matters to you)

Confused yet?

haha no I kind of get the jist of it. I'm also taking a digital photography class so I kind of understand some basics, but its still early in the class yet.

I'll end up going with the Sigma 105mm then if thats what works best for macro reef shots. I suppose it will go well with the Sigma 17-70mm I would be getting soon too.