rockryno Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 just found this on craigslist by my house. I want to get super up close to objects. would this do it? I have an canon digital rebel. http://denver.craigslist.org/pho/3725896624.html Link to comment
doppelganger Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 yes that would work. It's a good lens. just keep in mind that the lens sells for ~$600 brand new so... consider how used that lens is, warranty, and other factors. All canon lenses have a date code on them which can be used to determine the date of production. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx A free ND filter is nice but is only used in special situations. Also remember that a 100mm on a 1.6 crop body will be around 160mm. I'm not sure how deep you're planning to dive into macro but depending on what other lenses you have, you might want to look into extension tubes as well for a cheap manual focus option. HTH Link to comment
rockryno Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 or would this one be better? http://denver.craigslist.org/pho/3744747509.html Link to comment
doppelganger Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 actually come to think of it... I don't think the lens hood comes with the canon. But I can't really remember u might have to do a search on that. beware that the sigma is an old lens. This appears to be the old 105 macro without the DG which was made in 1998 I believe. Optically I'm not sure how it compares. I would assume the canon has much better autofocus. The sigma may be a good bargain though. You'll have to dig up some reviews of it as I don't have that particular lens and can't give any insight. Again, alot of it will depend on what you plan on using it for. Link to comment
rockryno Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 thanks. Id like to make very small things big! In and out of the aquarium. Something like this : Link to comment
shaner014 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Id like to make very small things big! In and out of the aquarium. Gonna need more than a good lens for that. Link to comment
Withers Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 yes but in this case a macro lens is absolutely a pre-requisite. The Canon 100 f/2.8 is the most popular macro lens by a very long shot. I think you could talk him down a little bit in price though. Here's one still for sale at $350 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1291358&highlight=100+macro Reference these sales if you need to: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1290800&highlight=100+macro http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1288469&highlight=100+macro Link to comment
Zer0 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 yes but in this case a macro lens is absolutely a pre-requisite. The Canon 100 f/2.8 is the most popular macro lens by a very long shot. I think you could talk him down a little bit in price though. Here's one still for sale at $350 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1291358&highlight=100+macro Reference these sales if you need to: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1290800&highlight=100+macro http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1288469&highlight=100+macro What lense in specific would you need in order to take a photo like the one in post #5? If you don't mind me picking your brain... Link to comment
Withers Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I can't see the first pic, but for the second one... any macro lens could theoretically do it. Most macro lenses are 1:1 so no matter which one you get they'll all be able to take the same picture at the minimum focus distance, but the minimum focus distance will be different for each lens. For instance, I use a Sigma 150 f/2.8, which could take that same picture from slightly further away than a Canon 100 f/2.8 because the minimum focus distance is slightly larger. In practice, that just means that I can be not quite so in the subject's face to get a 1:1 shot, which is helpful for bugs. Or, stated another way, if that coral was further away from the glass I could still get that picture when the 100mm would fall short. But assuming both lenses are in range to get a 1:1 shot of the coral, they'd both produce basically the same result, I'd just have to stand further away to get it with the 150. The Canon 100 is a good deal because 1) supply is high so it's pretty cheap (see above), and 2) 100mm makes for a good prime lens on a crop body for every day use on top of as a macro lens. On the flip side, if you have a large tank you may want the extra reach of something in the 150mm range like I have, but you'll have to pay extra for it since not as many people go for macro lenses of that length. Link to comment
Zer0 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 For instance, I use a Sigma 150 f/2.8, which could take that same picture from slightly further away than a Canon 100 f/2.8 because the minimum focus distance is slightly larger. In practice, that just means that I can be not quite so in the subject's face to get a 1:1 shot, which is helpful for bugs. Or, stated another way, if that coral was further away from the glass I could still get that picture when the 100mm would fall short. And that there, is what I was looking for. Thank you good sir! Link to comment
Withers Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 If I was going to make a recommendation, I'd say go for the Canon 100 just because its cheaper. Image quality-wise they're essentially identical and I'd rather have a 100mm prime in my bag instead of a 150mm. Right now my wife and I are constantly fighting over who has the macro, we use it for all kinds of things. You won't regret purchasing one. Link to comment
Zer0 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 If I was going to make a recommendation, I'd say go for the Canon 100 just because its cheaper. Image quality-wise they're essentially identical and I'd rather have a 100mm prime in my bag instead of a 150mm. Right now my wife and I are constantly fighting over who has the macro, we use it for all kinds of things. You won't regret purchasing one. What are your thoughts on the 50mm f/2.5? In my circumstances, I don't think I could justify the price of the 100mm as much as I may want it, and I'm pretty sure the furthest point in my aquarium that can't be reached from moving to the sides is about 8-10 inches, but probably less, since my scape is really more or less centered within the 18x11x11 footprint. How effective would that 50mm be in any other situation? Also if you don't mind explaining, what exactly would the difference be comparing that 50mm f/2.5 to the kit lens on the 550d? Is it just the focusing distance that separates the two? Sorry for the numerous questions btw. Link to comment
Withers Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I've never used a macro that short, but I know there are people that have so they should probably be the ones to chime in. A true macro lens will be the sharpest lens you own. The kit lens will fall somewhere near the bottom of that list. In my personal opinion, having not ever used a 50mm macro, I would say it's not worth it. $350 for the Canon 100 macro is a fantastic price and by far the best bang for your buck. If I was looking at something in the 50mm range I'd get the 50 f/1.8 for $100, which won't function as a macro, but I don't feel like a 50mm macro would be very effective for taking macro shots anyway (again, having never actually used one). Link to comment
TheWAND Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I've never used a macro that short, but I know there are people that have so they should probably be the ones to chime in. A true macro lens will be the sharpest lens you own. The kit lens will fall somewhere near the bottom of that list. In my personal opinion, having not ever used a 50mm macro, I would say it's not worth it. $350 for the Canon 100 macro is a fantastic price and by far the best bang for your buck. If I was looking at something in the 50mm range I'd get the 50 f/1.8 for $100, which won't function as a macro, but I don't feel like a 50mm macro would be very effective for taking macro shots anyway (again, having never actually used one). 50mm macro is great for ring shots, or anything where you have the ability to get extremely close to the subject. As far as tank macros, 100mm or even 150mm are much more useable to get close. 50mm is fun for ring shots at weddings, because the wider FOV can give slightly more interesting backgrounds, but apart form that, the 100mm-150mm focal lengths are much more useful for macro photography. Lighting is much easier when you have some working distance from your subject. Link to comment
Zer0 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Yeah it sounds like the 50mm wouldn't really benefit me. I guess in the end it all comes down to which body part I'd be willing to hack off and sell in order to afford one of these lenses. Link to comment
rockryno Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 good information here! I found a 100/2.8 on craigslist NEW for $480. You were saying something about manufacture date? What should I look for if its new? Link to comment
Withers Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 If it's new you should be in the clear. Why would someone sell a brand new lens on craigslist though? Got a link? FWIW, I only buy used lenses, and I typically only buy them off the forum I posted links to above, for a couple of reasons. 1. You can easily ascertain the real market value with a little searching since the sellers are knowledgeable and the buyers are knowledgeable. 2. The lenses will nearly always be sharp copies due to the nature of the owners. If they weren't sharp when they bought them they would have returned them. Plus they can provide sample pictures taken with that exact lens to prove it. Link to comment
rockryno Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 I emailed him and asked the same question. http://denver.craigslist.org/pho/3686209617.html ill check out that website you linked Link to comment
Withers Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 He says its new but I highly doubt it. Looks well cared for though. Link to comment
Veng Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 good information here! I found a 100/2.8 on craigslist NEW for $480. You were saying something about manufacture date? What should I look for if its new?100/2.8 is currently 520$ new. Saving less than 10% just isn't worth the craigslist hassle or risk IMHO. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?sid=cpw-9030107⊂=cpw&is=USA&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=194451 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.