macro lenses

[Pea-n-Me]

Beautiful, Ed.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Well, you inspired me. I went out the in yard, clipped some flowers, brought them inside, set up some lights, and went to town. I'd post all my good shots, but I didn't get anything worth showing. Sigh. I need to spend more time reading up on macro photography because I'm just pathetic at it.

Your shots were great, though.

 

[YEKCIM]

Thank you both for your kind comments. MUCHLY appreciated.

I've never had a *real* macro lens before, so I'm really a newbie. Some observations:

1.) Tripod is required for 1:1, at least for me.

2.) The slightest breeze can ruin an otherwise perfect shot, due to the razor thin DOF and the fact that any movement is greatly magnified at anything approaching 1:1 repro ratio. I don't see how people get decent pix of bugs...unless they are dead and, thus, not moving.

3.) Manual focusing works LOTS better than AF on the macro end.

4.) The Sigma 150 is an awesome lens, both as a macro and as a good medium tele. It's going to spend a lot of time on my D80.

~Ed

 

[RLccweems]

Ohh....my....very nice!

 

[NostalgicDad]

Yep, those are some good ones. Good job Ed!

 

[DVC Jen]

I love the rose bud. They are all great - but that one really seems special to me.

 

[Suburbanmom]

Gorgeous! I love the rosebud too. I have a clematis vine in my backyard that hasn't bloomed yet, but when it does, I'm going to have a go at some macro photography. I doubt I can get the results you have though.

 

[Evad]

Very nice Ed!! Looks like your having fun with Mrs. Y's new lens. Are you going to let her use it anytime soon???

 

[DebºoºS]

awesome shots. It's sooo difficult to do outside.They're beautiful. The wind always gets to me but I keep going back for more.

 

[AndrewWG]

Ed,

You're killing me with these shots. I see this lens in my near future for sure now. Great shots!

 

[LMarge]

getting my kneepads out again!!! Wow!! Those are all beautiful, but the rosebud is stellar!! Thanks for sharing - now I'm off to confession for my coveting of photo gear - again!!!LOL

 

[crazydadguy]

Yes, I noticed a slight movement blur on the third electron to the left of the atomic nuclei...Kidding!!Holy COW dude!! The level of detail captured in those pics is amazing! You are a macro

 

[Gdad]

Nicely done Ed- Looks like you have a real winner there in the 150 Sig.

 

[Groucho]

Thank you both for your kind comments. MUCHLY appreciated.

I've never had a *real* macro lens before, so I'm really a newbie. Some observations:

1.) Tripod is required for 1:1, at least for me.

2.) The slightest breeze can ruin an otherwise perfect shot, due to the razor thin DOF and the fact that any movement is greatly magnified at anything approaching 1:1 repro ratio. I don't see how people get decent pix of bugs...unless they are dead and, thus, not moving.

3.) Manual focusing works LOTS better than AF on the macro end.

4.) The Sigma 150 is an awesome lens, both as a macro and as a good medium tele. It's going to spend a lot of time on my D80.

~Ed

Nice shots - I would expect nothing less from you!

1) IS helps but yeah, you definitely need to be super steady. On a few very close merchandise photos with my 105mm 1:1 macro, it would sometimes take a few shots to get focus where I want. The biggest issue, for me at least, is actually the sway of the body - if my head moved just a couple millimeters fowards or back, it could dramatically change the focus point. I remember shooting a tiny Muppets figure in an Art of Disney store that took about 5-6 tries before I could get the focus where I wanted.

2) Ain't that true - I was at our local Lilac Festival a couple weekends ago, and it was fairly breezy which made flower photography darn near impossible. It's hard to get focus when the flower won't even stay in the viewfinder!

3) Again, I definitely agree - I don't mind in the least that my two macro lenses are manual focus. They're also fairly easy to focus as a normal lens. A pentaprism viewfinder helps and a Katz Eye split-prism focus screen would be even better. Maybe one of these days...

4) I've no experience with that lens but it seems rare that anyone's not happy with their macro lenses - they are just so darn sharp and usually nicely colorful.

 

[emmabelle]

I have a question, I have a question!


I took this today, I want to crop it but how will that effect the resolution? I'm so confused by the whole cropping and editing pictures vs. resolution thing. As soon as I open a picture and do anything to it, do I lose resolution, even if I just boost the color?

 

[jann1033]

both canon, similar price, similar rating, same 2.8...thinking i have a sharp 70-200 f4, would i notice the difference in the 50mm/ 60 mm enough to want to use it as a non macro lens... or would the 100 be a nicer length for general usage...i like that 100 length in a prime i have now that is falling apart...would it be sacrilege to get a wider prime and just use my 50 , the 60 or 100 and maybe something around 17ish instead of a walk around lens? decisions decisions?
so what would you get and why.

my biggest annoyances with any lens is 1) it drives me crazy if it's soft and 2) if it has a lot of purple fringing( even though i can fix that, it bugs me )

 

[YesDear]

I have a Nikon 60mm macro 2.8 that is tack sharp. I prefer the 60mm to the 100. I use it primarily as a macro lens but do use it as a general use lens. I think mine works great. I assume the canon is comparable.

 

[Experiment_626]

Based on everything I've ever heard, I'd go with the 60mm. And then I can envy you the shots you'll get with it!

You have anything in particular you're thinking of shooting macro?

SSB

 

[jann1033]

Based on everything I've ever heard, I'd go with the 60mm. And then I can envy you the shots you'll get with it!

You have anything in particular you're thinking of shooting macro?

SSB

probably plants like 80 % of what i shoot with all my other lenses. the macro i have now is 100 but it is only 1:2 or 1:1 with a filter and the filter is really hard to focus with. i don't mind that fact that now that the focus is only working occasionally, i can get another one without feeling guilty. you have to keep moving the tripod so it's exactly 1 ft away and can't always do that with out getting in the actual flower bed. some botanical gardens frown on me doing that. i only crushed one or two of their rare plants, why are they so cranky?
when i looked at samples of the 60 and 100 they looked pretty close in sharpness( one is rated 9.5 the other 9.6 on fred miranda). someone on here ( or maybe a few) have the 100 but i don't think i've seen shots here from the 60 so i am trying to figure out if there is anything to rule one or the other out.

 

[handicap18]

For flower closeups I would probably go with the longer lens. A lot of times you can't get as physicallty close as you may like depending on how the garden is set up and the longer focal lenght will help. From what I've read and talked to about with a few other of my photo friends, the 60 seems to be more of an indoor macro. I know its a good length for food macro's or merchandise macro's. Its easier to set up a indoor macro shoot on a table top with the 60mm than the 100mm.

Thats not to say that either can't do the other job, but for me for outdoor stuff I think the longer focal length is better.