doppelganger Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 well like I said, imo, I don't know if that's enough to warrant a dedicated macro lens but it's up to you. Link to comment
Criley7 Posted April 27, 2012 Author Share Posted April 27, 2012 well like I said, imo, I don't know if that's enough to warrant a dedicated macro lens but it's up to you. It's there a cheaper lens that you would recommend that would give me better close ups then my 18-50mm? Link to comment
Bishop Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 You should seriously reevaluate your camera. The 70-300 gives a much better macro shot than the 18-55. In many cases, the 70-300mm is also a superior lens because it can create a very narrow depth of field for better Bokeh. I paid $200 for a used 28-135mm USM IS 3.5-5.6 and it is the best investment I've made in lenses. It's not a Bokeh king and it's not as sharp as a prime lens but does take all around great pictures. The only problem I ever have with any of my telephoto lenses for macro shots is that the ISO often has to be pumped up which creates to much noise in the darker parts of the tank or the aperture has to be wide open which softens the image. Just because of the sharpness of the lens and the large aperture, my canon 28mm 1.8 gets the most incredible images. If it's a cheap lens you want then consider buying the canon 50mm 1.8 for it's low light ability. This is a great lens to have around anyway. the 60mm macro wouldn't let you down either but that gets into money but it provides a great portrait lens with the ability to shoot lifesize macros. Link to comment
Criley7 Posted April 28, 2012 Author Share Posted April 28, 2012 You should seriously reevaluate your camera. The 70-300 gives a much better macro shot than the 18-55. In many cases, the 70-300mm is also a superior lens because it can create a very narrow depth of field for better Bokeh. I paid $200 for a used 28-135mm USM IS 3.5-5.6 and it is the best investment I've made in lenses. It's not a Bokeh king and it's not as sharp as a prime lens but does take all around great pictures. The only problem I ever have with any of my telephoto lenses for macro shots is that the ISO often has to be pumped up which creates to much noise in the darker parts of the tank or the aperture has to be wide open which softens the image. Just because of the sharpness of the lens and the large aperture, my canon 28mm 1.8 gets the most incredible images. If it's a cheap lens you want then consider buying the canon 50mm 1.8 for it's low light ability. This is a great lens to have around anyway. the 60mm macro wouldn't let you down either but that gets into money but it provides a great portrait lens with the ability to shoot lifesize macros. Thanks for you input. I'll look all those up. But I'm not looking to go too cheap either. I say a $250-$400 range Link to comment
Bishop Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Thanks for you input. I'll look all those up. But I'm not looking to go too cheap either. I say a $250-$400 range In that case, I would probably go with the 60mm 2.8. These go for $430 new. the 100mm or sigma 105 will give you a couple extra inches to play with for the lifesize shot but the 60mm cost a lot less and makes for a better portrait lens in my opinion. Only reason I don't already have this lens is because it would be a waste of money since I have my heart set on a 17-55mm f2.8 Practically the same focal length so unless you plan on getting a lens that would counter the need for the 60mm, that would be a damn good lens to go with. Was just playing around with my 50mm 1.8. This lens is a bokeh king for sure but it don't seem to like shooting in the tank as much as my telephoto zooms. Link to comment
05XRunner Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 17-55 and 60 macro may have a same focal length but they are 2 totally different types of lenses. I would personally not buy anything shorter then the tamron 90 for tank photos. Link to comment
Bishop Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 17-55 and 60 macro may have a same focal length but they are 2 totally different types of lenses. I would personally not buy anything shorter then the tamron 90 for tank photos. What I meant and failed to mention is that with those two having the same focal length and aperture, It would be much more benificial for me to go with a 100mm macro. The 60mm would not do me any good as a portrait lens if I have the 17-55 f2.8. Link to comment
Criley7 Posted April 28, 2012 Author Share Posted April 28, 2012 Thank you guys. The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 seems like my best deal. Its only .....$275 compared to the $475+ 100mm lenses. So I hopefully wont be disappointed. Link to comment
DaveFason Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I just picked up a used Sigma 105mm and love it. I really want to try this adapter for closer macro shots. http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-250-2-5x-...duct/B000A1SZ2Y Flickr Group http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/pool/page30/ I just did my first video using it for most of the shots. https://vimeo.com/41141166 -Dave Link to comment
Criley7 Posted April 28, 2012 Author Share Posted April 28, 2012 I just picked up a used Sigma 105mm and love it. I really want to try this adapter for closer macro shots. http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-250-2-5x-...duct/B000A1SZ2Y Flickr Group http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/pool/page30/ I just did my first video using it for most of the shots. https://vimeo.com/41141166 -Dave Thanks Dave for the input. Your video and pictures are want got me thinking about buy the 105mm lens. It's a go in my book! Awesome pictures and video BTW! Thanks again. Link to comment
qualitycontrol Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Can you send a link of the lens you bought? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.