Macro lense questions.

[slowngreen]

"kinda" looking into getting setup with a canon t2 and a macro lense.

 

Questions are...Between a 1:1 and a 1:2, other than 1:1 being what everyone wants, would a 1:2 be a good macro for corals too? My current camera is a Nikon P90, which I like but want to beable to get alot closer shots.

 

Just looking at pics using a 1:2 100mm f4 lense (not coral) I just wondered if they would be a really nice starting point?

 

 

Heres the pics with said lense.

 

 

 

 

Also, do "film" lenses work for dslr or does it have to be a Digital lense? Really hoping to be under $500 with this, going all used. I have found the camera I want for $300-$350 but finding a 1:1 100mm lense for $150-200 isnt easy. Plus half of them I look at dont say 1:1, so Im not sure what they are.

 

One more question, would a 1:1 f2.8 but not in 100mm, be any good? Like a 90mm f2.8 1:1?

[seabass]

It's almost been a day, so I'll weigh in. I've done a little research but have no real experience, so hopefully others will correct me and add some insight and personal experience.

 

"kinda" looking into getting setup with a canon T2i and a macro lens.

From what I've read that would be a good setup. You can sometimes find a T2i body fairly reasonably priced. If it comes with a kit lens, all the better (then you'll be able to use it for other types photography as well).

 

Questions are...Between a 1:1 and a 1:2, other than 1:1 being what everyone wants, would a 1:2 be a good macro for corals too? My current camera is a Nikon P90, which I like but want to be able to get a lot closer shots.

A 1:1 macro lens means the image is recorded life size (a 1:2 lens will record it half size, etc). Macro is an overused term and often just means close up. However, from what you wrote, I would look for a 1:1 macro lens.

 

Just looking at pics using a 1:2 100mm f4 lens (not coral) I just wondered if they would be a really nice starting point?

It seems like it would be a waste to buy a 1:2 lens only to purchase a 1:1 macro lens down the road.

 

Also, do "film" lenses work for dslr or does it have to be a Digital lense?

Normally a camera line uses a specific series of lenses. For example, the Canon T2i that you referenced can use all Canon EF and EF-S mount lenses (which are electronic autofocusing lenses).

 

One more question, would a 1:1 f2.8 but not in 100mm, be any good? Like a 90mm f2.8 1:1?

The focal length is virtually the same. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they are the same quality.

[metrokat]

I have a T2i that I'm considering selling. Comes with a standard kit lens.

[slowngreen]

Im not ready yet, just trying to get info at the moment.

[MarieH]

Those images you are showing are very nice, taken in bright light. An F4 lens is great in bright light, but for tank lighting, it is just not fast enough. You need a lens with a wide, fast aperture. Like f2.8 or wider. Macro 90mm or 100mm f2.8, didicated macro, that is 1:1 is for really tiny images of polyps, tentacles etc. Its what you really need, and what I do not currently own either. You can try extension tubes, and get some nice images, its cheaper than a dedicated macro. I think if my tank matures enough and I can justify the expense, I might invest in a true macro. Be aware, that the cheaper offerings from sigma and tamron are equally as good as the major manufacturers, with a tinier price tag too. Save money for a cable release or remote shutter release too

[Withers]

Nobody takes a macro shot at f/2.8 FWIW. The depth of field is so razor thin it is virtually worthless. All of mine are at least f/8 or more, most of them are f/10-f/13.

 

But virtually all 1:1 macro lenses are f/2.8 anyway, and it comes in very handy when using it as a prime lens for other types of photography.

[iadubber]

I'd recommend the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro Non IS or the Tamron 90mm macro. The Canon 60mm 2.8 Macro will work fine on a T2i, but IMHO, you want a little longer or you will ram into the front of the tank with the lens which I've even done with the Tamron 90mm macro.

 

Like mentioned above, the DOF is so thin at 2.8 you aren't ever going to use that aperture for macro. Usually you'll be f8 or higher.

 

This was with my Canon 100L macro at F14

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadharwick/9855177336/'>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadharwick/9855177336/'>IMG_8910 by http://www.flickr.com/people/chadharwick/'>iadubber, on Flickr

[slowngreen]

If pinching pennies is an issue, how would an actual 1:1 f.28 55mm be in comparison to a 100mm for aquarium macros? Would the 100mm really be much better since both are stopped at the glass?

[seabass]

What lens is this? Iadubber felt the focusing range of the 60mm lens was too close (I assume that a 55mm focal length lens might be fairly similar).

 

The two most popular macro lenses seem to be the 100mm and (to a slightly lessor extent) the 90mm 1:1 macro lenses. As I previously stated, I would save up for one of these lenses. It might be a better purchase than your camera itself, as you could use it on newer models of camera bodies as you decide to upgrade.

 

In comparison to your P90 camera (26mm focal length equiv. with 24× optical zoom), 50mm vs 100mm would be like using the zoom at 2× versus 4×.

 

If you are pinching pennies, I would look into getting a macro extension tube for your T2i's kit lens instead. From what I understand, they can improve the macro capabilities of your lens without costing much money (as they are just a tube). I haven't looked into them very much (and am not sure if or how they affect the focusing range), but I see them mentioned from time to time.

[iadubber]

 

If you are pinching pennies, I would look into getting a macro extension tube for your T2i's kit lens instead. From what I understand, they can improve the macro capabilities of your lens without costing much money (as they are just a tube). I haven't looked into them very much (and aren't sure if or how they affect the focusing range), but I see them mentioned from time to time.

Tubes reduce the focusing distance. I tried tubes with aquarium photography and would constantly bump the front glass with the lens. This is why I'd never recommend less than 90mm macro lenses for bugs and fish. If you are doing other macro like flowers and such then sure a shorter 60mm would work fine.

 

Personally for aquarium stuff I like 100-150mm for macro.

 

I also have to agree that the lens is more important than the body.

[slowngreen]

Ok thanks guys, its slightly confusing to me but I think Im getting it. I just thought you would shoot against the glass or close to it no matter the lense, guess not.

 

To answer seabass, I was looking at pics from a 60mm f2.0 in this thread. Used on a canon t3.

[iadubber]

The issue with macro is you are 99% of the time shooting in manual focus and you are actually shifting the camera closer for farther to focus objects instead of relying on AF. Either way that thread they are using the Tamron 60mm f2 macro which is a good lens, but I think you might regret not getting the 90mm if you are going Tamron. You are going to get good shots with either with some practice.

 

These are with the Tamron 90mm when i had it.

 

 

\