macro lenses

[tinksdad]

Thanks. Bouyancy and surge are easy to acccount for once you're used to them (taking the DIR-F class really helped), knowing how to do a back-kick is highly useful for UW photography. My bane right now is white balance, which is why I'm heavily weighting RAW on my next camera. If I screw up the WB in the shot, it can be fixed in post processing. Over 1/2 of my non-macro shots have way too much blue in them, including many where I tried to do a manual white balance.

That shot was taken in Anilao, Philippines at a site called Basura (trash in Tagolog) in about 40 fsw but the site runs from ~15 to 60. All sorts of unusual stuff lives there and what's out changes every few hours. I'd love to do a late night/pre-dawn dive there some day to see what sort of weird stuff comes out then.

It'll be interesting to compare here to the Red.

Small world. I took the fundies class a couple of years ago and absolutely LOVED it!! And, YES, the backup kick is THE most effective tool I use under water after the camera in a good housing!!

I actually took my first OW class in the Philippines when I was there on a WestPac crusie back in 1977. Loooonnnng time ago!! Would LOVE to get back, the waters were "wonderful"!!

Good to see another like minded diver on the DIS boards!!!

 

[GrumpyOne]

Small world. I took the fundies class a couple of years ago and absolutely LOVED it!! And, YES, the backup kick is THE most effective tool I use under water after the camera in a good housing!!

I actually took my first OW class in the Philippines when I was there on a WestPac crusie back in 1977. Loooonnnng time ago!! Would LOVE to get back, the waters were "wonderful"!!

Good to see another like minded diver on the DIS boards!!!

The PI is AWESOME for macro, not so much so for big stuff and outside of a few locations like Tubbataha Reef, can't come anywhere close to Palau. If you do come back here, be sure to swing by there as well.

If I had to guess what the last thing I would have found here would be, someone else who has taken a GUE class would have been near the top.

 

[Gdad]

First Rose Bud of the Season. I wonder if it feels like I'm watching it...

 

[tinksdad]

First Rose Bud of the Season. I wonder if it feels like I'm watching it...

Kind of like that Mervyns (dept store) commercial of the folks waiting for the doors to open for the big sale.

Open, Open, open, open.......

 

[jann1033]

thought this was interesting, i was looking for this lens review, but if you scroll towards the bottom of page 2 gets into how crop factor affects macro photog.
http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0106tokina/index1.html

 

[tinksdad]

A shamrock variation blossom

 

[Delphis]

 

[Master Mason]

Does anyone have this lens?

I currently have the Sigma 18-135 that I have been using as my walk around, but I am wish it was more open than the f/3.5-5.6...

So I have been looking.

Cannon has some options, but they are double to triple the cost. I have read the reviews, and people seem to be happy with it, but I was wondering how much of that is happy at the cost vs happy with the lens.

 

[deletedpenguin]

I've got it. For a 1/3 of the price, it's a great deal. Even with cost aside, it's not leaps and bounds different. My only complaint is the AF is a bit loud.

 

[jann1033]

it's rated pretty good here
http://www.photodo.com/products.html?manuid=3&name=Sigma

 

[souper]

I am considering a macro lens for a Canon 30D. From the 2 lenses below, which would you pick and why? Primary use of the lens would be to photograph flowers etc.

Canon 60mm
Canon 100mm

I appreciate all of your input.

 

[jann1033]

i'd get the 100 1) it's supposed to be a great lens 2) i love 100mm even with the 1.6 crop for just a walk around range...i have a cheaper version of this and love it( plan on upgrading to the canon 100 after i get a couple other things i want). i think the 60 is recommended for 1.6 crop but i've taken portraits etc with the 100 and really like it. also if you ever want to get into more( or would that be less......) than 1:1 ratio you can get a kenko teleconverter and use it with 100 but i don't think they recommend using it with any mm under that

 

[photo_chick]

I'm subbing because I have the same question, though I am looking for the Rebel XT.

 

[jann1033]

i have a rebel xt as well

 

[tinksdad]

Don't do Canon, but I have the 105mm f/2.8 Nikon Macro and I have really enjoyed that lens. I choose the longer focal length for it's greater reach. Some critters are skittish you know. It also makes a great portrait lens and isn't bad for landscape either.


From a test of the Canon 100mm f/2.8

Without a doubt, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro is a superb lens. It's in a good focal length range for use as a portrait lens, but you may actually want to knock its sharpness down a bit after the fact in Photoshop(tm) to be kinder to your subjects. It may not be for everyone, but if you're looking for a maximally sharp, high-quality lens in this focal length range, this is about as good as it gets.

Good glass is forever!!

 

[deletedpenguin]

Uh oh, there's a Nikon user amongst us...

 

[allie5]

This is a quandry Im going through as well. In fact I asked about it on a photography board recently and I think Im sold on the 100mm.

A few people replied to me that had the 60mm, and although they said it was a great lens, performance wise, they said they struggled using it on bugs and very small objects as it just didnt have enough reach. Im thinking that I would use the 100mm a lot more than the 60mm as it seems more versatile.

Its the price that is putting me off buying it straight away. Ive just bought the 70-300IS and the 50mm F/1.8 for my 30d and the 100mm macro is more than $600 here in the UK. Im thinking of leaving it till I come to the US later in the year as you lucky lot can get it much cheaper!

 

[handicap18]

I don't have a Canon, but I don't think that matters one way or the other. I do have a macro lens for my dSLR though. I ended up with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro for a couple of reasons. 1 I liked the image quality, VERY sharp. 2 I wanted to do macro stuff and with the crop factor this focal length gets me real close with out have to get as physically close. 3 I wanted to have a fast prime. While there is the 85mm f/1.8 which is what 1 1/3 stops faster, it doesn't have the macro. F/2.8 will be very handy for indoor events for the kids when a flash isn't an option. I've also taken some great portrait head shots of the kids with natural light. With the little bit longer reach I don't have to be as close and can get some more candid expressions.

For flowers, either the 60mm or 100mm will do fine, but you have to ask yourself if that is the only subject your going to use it for? I'm guessing for that amount of money the answer is going to be no. So then you have to find out the other things you can and will use the new lens for, then go that route.

 

[mabas9395]

I think it depends a bit on what you plan to shoot and what lenses you already have. If your macro photography will be stationary, then the 60mm is fine. But if you might be shooting things that you can't get close to because they might move (e.g. bugs) then the 100mm would be better. As far as other lenses, if you already have the the 50-60mm range covered (like with the kit lens or 50mm f/1.8) then I would get the 100mm to add some reach because you can use it for regular shots as well. If you are really wanting to do some portraits, then the 60mm might be better 1st choice. The 100mm is a tad long for portraits on a 1.6 crop camera but makes a nice second portrait choice.

So, without knowing what other lenses you have, and if I assume that you only have the kit lens, I would say get the 100mm macro and the 50mm f/1.8. Then get the 85mm f/1.8 (its a great, fast, sharp lens). Then get the 10mm-22mm ultra wide angle, it is a TON of fun to shoot with. Then get something longer like the 70-200 f/4.0. You'll also need a good flash, the 580ex is the best but the 430ex will work great unless you turn pro and need the features of the 580ex. Then you'll probably want a better walk around lens than the kit lens, so you should probably get the. . . . . .

Moral of the story is that it can get very, very expensive asking a photography board for help spending your money. But we're glad to do it!

 

[jann1033]

I think it depends a bit on what you plan to shoot and what lenses you already have. If your macro photography will be stationary, then the 60mm is fine. But if you might be shooting things that you can't get close to because they might move (e.g. bugs) then the 100mm would be better. As far as other lenses, if you already have the the 50-60mm range covered (like with the kit lens or 50mm f/1.8) then I would get the 100mm to add some reach because you can use it for regular shots as well. If you are really wanting to do some portraits, then the 60mm might be better 1st choice. The 100mm is a tad long for portraits on a 1.6 crop camera but makes a nice second portrait choice.

So, without knowing what other lenses you have, and if I assume that you only have the kit lens, I would say get the 100mm macro and the 50mm f/1.8. Then get the 85mm f/1.8 (its a great, fast, sharp lens). Then get the 10mm-22mm ultra wide angle, it is a TON of fun to shoot with. Then get something longer like the 70-200 f/4.0. You'll also need a good flash, the 580ex is the best but the 430ex will work great unless you turn pro and need the features of the 580ex. Then you'll probably want a better walk around lens than the kit lens, so you should probably get the. . . . . .

Moral of the story is that it can get very, very expensive asking a photography board for help spending your money. But we're glad to do it!

what does it say about me that i see nothing wrong with this paragraph