Im looking at getting a telephoto and a macro lens. What should I get? I have a canon ti camera. Any ideas?
Lenses?
- Thread starter mhdagley
- Start date
for what kind of body? canon? nikon? pentax? etc?
- Thread starter
- #3
How about the Canon 100/2.8 USM Macro. You get a macro, a small tele, and a fast lens with nice bokeh.
What type of photography do you do? What is your price range? What do you already own?
- Thread starter
- #6
I have a 28-90 mm lens that came with it. Price range is yet to be determined. Once I get a feel for whats out there and the cost I will go from there. The type of photography varies on what I see. I have done things from headlight streaks on the highway to wildlife shots. I want to do the real close up shots that a macro lens does, also I want to be able to get the nice close ups of a tele lens.
lenses are pretty much like a lot of other things.............how much money do you have, and we'll help you spend it! 
i shoot a lot of landscapes, and some street shooting.
equipment:
Pentax K200D (digital slr)
Vivitar 19 3.8
Kiron 28-85 2.8
Kiron 35-135 3.5
Kiron 28-210 3.8
the lenses are all older manuals, but i had them recently reconditioned, and will last as long as i need them to.
my favorite is the 28 - 210. it is a huge lens hung off the front of the camera, but i use it 90 % of the time.
the top 2 were shot with the 35-135, the bottom left was shot across the harbour with the 28-210, and bottom right across a field, with the 28-210.
any more questions, pm me.
i'm travelling now, and may not reply until the weekend.
i shoot a lot of landscapes, and some street shooting.
equipment:
Pentax K200D (digital slr)
Vivitar 19 3.8
Kiron 28-85 2.8
Kiron 35-135 3.5
Kiron 28-210 3.8
the lenses are all older manuals, but i had them recently reconditioned, and will last as long as i need them to.
my favorite is the 28 - 210. it is a huge lens hung off the front of the camera, but i use it 90 % of the time.
the top 2 were shot with the 35-135, the bottom left was shot across the harbour with the 28-210, and bottom right across a field, with the 28-210.
any more questions, pm me.
i'm travelling now, and may not reply until the weekend.
The two things you want to do -- tele and macro -- are two different things. You need two different tools, not one which does both. A short tele macro (90 to 105mm) might fit both bills, but a good one is not cheap. In my experience, most new/novice photographers think of tele as longer than 100mm, more like 200 or more, especially for wildlife.
You are unlikely to find a lens longer than 100mm that does macro well without spending significant money ... if it even exists.
If you want to do macro in the range of 50-100mm focal length, get a true macro/close focus lens. Or, get a good fast prime (non-zoom) lens and use extension tubes to provide the macro capabilities.
The two best pieces of advice I can give after about 35 years of photography are:
You are unlikely to find a lens longer than 100mm that does macro well without spending significant money ... if it even exists.
If you want to do macro in the range of 50-100mm focal length, get a true macro/close focus lens. Or, get a good fast prime (non-zoom) lens and use extension tubes to provide the macro capabilities.
The two best pieces of advice I can give after about 35 years of photography are:
- Don't try to "sneak up" on quality by buying something cheap and "good enough" now. You will end up wasting money. Save for the RIGHT tool and what you really need.
- Don't use zooms except for casual work. I don't give a rat's arse how good modern zooms are optically, they are crap for developing your photographic habits and good technique. Yeah, I'm a curmudgeon ... deal with it.
- Thread starter
- #9
The two things you want to do -- tele and macro -- are two different things. You need two different tools, not one which does both. A short tele macro (90 to 105mm) might fit both bills, but a good one is not cheap. In my experience, most new/novice photographers think of tele as longer than 100mm, more like 200 or more, especially for wildlife.
You are unlikely to find a lens longer than 100mm that does macro well without spending significant money ... if it even exists.
If you want to do macro in the range of 50-100mm focal length, get a true macro/close focus lens. Or, get a good fast prime (non-zoom) lens and use extension tubes to provide the macro capabilities.
The two best pieces of advice I can give after about 35 years of photography are:
- Don't try to "sneak up" on quality by buying something cheap and "good enough" now. You will end up wasting money. Save for the RIGHT tool and what you really need.
- Don't use zooms except for casual work. I don't give a rat's arse how good modern zooms are optically, they are crap for developing your photographic habits and good technique. Yeah, I'm a curmudgeon ... deal with it.
I completely agree with the buy good first idea. The problem I have no idea what good is.
- Thread starter
- #11
I have no idea I am open to anything.
The extension tubes and bellows allow for greater magnification of the object. This link may give you a better idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
I would suggest the Canon 60mm macro - it is small and light and is fast enough that it can also be used as a portrait lens as it is an 85mm full frame equivalent. The Canon 100mm is heavier and larger. However, if you upgrade to a full frame later, the 60mm cannon be used (i.e., on a Canon 5-D).
Since I've seen no mention of price you want to spend I'll lay out a few options.
Telephoto:
I own this lens, and recommend it highly (100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html
I've shot quite a bit with that lens, everything from landscapes to portraits to sports. The range it covers is phenomenal. It is heavy, and it is expensive at 3 lbs and $1400 but well worth it.
If you arent looking for such a long lens, I would also recommend this one (70-200 f/2.8 IS): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html it has a huge 2.8 aperture through the entire zoom range which makes it an excellent portrait lens. It is even heavier and more expensive than the 100-400 at 3.5 lbs and $1700 but is also well worth it.
For less money you can look at a brand like Sigma or Tamron. Both make great lenses (some lines) and they are generally less expensive. For example:
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 $700 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html
Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 $250 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html
or
Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 $850 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549247-REG/Sigma_728101_120_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_DG_OS.html
For Macro:
For macro, I'm assuming you want something that gives you results like you've seen on the internet. Where someone took a picture of an ant, and it fills the frame of the image. For that, you really need a dedicated macro lens.
Canon 65mm f/2.8 $830 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html
This is the lens that will do what you have seen on the internet, you can fill a picture with one grain of rice. Most macro lenses will only allow a 1:1 magnification of the object you are shooting, this one does a 5:1. If you go this route, it would be wise to invest in a macro flash head and a good tripod.
Telephoto:
I own this lens, and recommend it highly (100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html
I've shot quite a bit with that lens, everything from landscapes to portraits to sports. The range it covers is phenomenal. It is heavy, and it is expensive at 3 lbs and $1400 but well worth it.
If you arent looking for such a long lens, I would also recommend this one (70-200 f/2.8 IS): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html it has a huge 2.8 aperture through the entire zoom range which makes it an excellent portrait lens. It is even heavier and more expensive than the 100-400 at 3.5 lbs and $1700 but is also well worth it.
For less money you can look at a brand like Sigma or Tamron. Both make great lenses (some lines) and they are generally less expensive. For example:
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 $700 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html
Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 $250 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html
or
Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 $850 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549247-REG/Sigma_728101_120_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_DG_OS.html
For Macro:
For macro, I'm assuming you want something that gives you results like you've seen on the internet. Where someone took a picture of an ant, and it fills the frame of the image. For that, you really need a dedicated macro lens.
Canon 65mm f/2.8 $830 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html
This is the lens that will do what you have seen on the internet, you can fill a picture with one grain of rice. Most macro lenses will only allow a 1:1 magnification of the object you are shooting, this one does a 5:1. If you go this route, it would be wise to invest in a macro flash head and a good tripod.
- Thread starter
- #15
Man I want that canon 65 mm lens. Looks like I got some saving to do.
If you are just looking to try out macro photography, then just purchase a set of extension tubes, and use them in combination with the lens you already own. The set of tubes should cost you less than $100. If you decide that you really like taking those kinds of photos then you can save up for the specialized lens.
- Thread starter
- #17
So I got a 60 mm canon macro. Im not sure if it will work with my camera, a ti. If not im going to get the 50
Aside from extension tubes, another economical way to play around with macro is to get an adapter to use the older manual focus lenses on your body. The older "legendary" lenses can be had used for not a lot of money. And they are still excellent performers.
The good thing about macro is that you are not in a hurry, and can take your time. Some, if not all, will not meter in your Canon (as they will with pentax or some nikon bodies), though, but that will also teach you how to judge light, or better still, how to use a hand held meter.
Of the older lenses, the Vivitar 90/2.5 or the Tamron 90/2.5 (which you can get with the EOS adaptall mount) are very good.
Even better, as some curmudgeons here may tell you, would be an OM adapter and a 90/2 zuiko. Good to see you here, Earl.
The good thing about macro is that you are not in a hurry, and can take your time. Some, if not all, will not meter in your Canon (as they will with pentax or some nikon bodies), though, but that will also teach you how to judge light, or better still, how to use a hand held meter.
Of the older lenses, the Vivitar 90/2.5 or the Tamron 90/2.5 (which you can get with the EOS adaptall mount) are very good.
Even better, as some curmudgeons here may tell you, would be an OM adapter and a 90/2 zuiko.
Good to see you here, Earl.
Stay away from a 50mm macro lens. The working distance is so small that you need to get within inches of anything you photograph. This results in almost always getting in the way of what you shoot, and of course blocking the light. I use a Canon f4 100 mm macro and I couldn't be happier with it. The working distance makes all the difference in the world.
I agree that you shouldn't waste your money on buying cheap: that's a strategy that just about never works. However, when I first got interested in macro, I bought a diopter "filter" lens off the 'bay for something like $5.00 and it's one of the best $5.00 I've ever spent.
The quality of the pictures taken with a diopter are nowhere near what can be done with a true macro lens, but I've taken pictures with it that I just love and that others seem to be impressed with too. One of them was recently selected for an exhibition and hung in a gallery for a couple of weeks.
And so rather than spend big dollars on a real macro lens, you may wish to try out a diopter just to see whether you enjoy macro work. That's the route I went, and I ended up owning a real macro lens, along with a bellows unit that looks like something from 100 years ago.
BTW, my diopter is made by Nikon and was NIB. Right now you can get a whole set of Tiffen close up filters for $28. There's a couple of Nikons on, one for $29.50 obo, there's another Nikon for $19.50. Just make sure (1) don't buy a no-name piece of junk (lots of no-nae stuff is sold as fitting Canon, or Nikon or Pentax, but they're just no-name stuff (2) make sure it's the right filter size, ie. diameter, mine happens to be 52 mm. it doesn't matter which company makes them, they will fit every lens if they're the right diameter, and finally (3) they come with different power ratings, 1, 2, 3 and so on, so you'll need to check into that too.
I agree that you shouldn't waste your money on buying cheap: that's a strategy that just about never works. However, when I first got interested in macro, I bought a diopter "filter" lens off the 'bay for something like $5.00 and it's one of the best $5.00 I've ever spent.
The quality of the pictures taken with a diopter are nowhere near what can be done with a true macro lens, but I've taken pictures with it that I just love and that others seem to be impressed with too. One of them was recently selected for an exhibition and hung in a gallery for a couple of weeks.
And so rather than spend big dollars on a real macro lens, you may wish to try out a diopter just to see whether you enjoy macro work. That's the route I went, and I ended up owning a real macro lens, along with a bellows unit that looks like something from 100 years ago.
BTW, my diopter is made by Nikon and was NIB. Right now you can get a whole set of Tiffen close up filters for $28. There's a couple of Nikons on, one for $29.50 obo, there's another Nikon for $19.50. Just make sure (1) don't buy a no-name piece of junk (lots of no-nae stuff is sold as fitting Canon, or Nikon or Pentax, but they're just no-name stuff (2) make sure it's the right filter size, ie. diameter, mine happens to be 52 mm. it doesn't matter which company makes them, they will fit every lens if they're the right diameter, and finally (3) they come with different power ratings, 1, 2, 3 and so on, so you'll need to check into that too.
+1 on the diopters. True macro lenses are often made for "flat field" work as well as high magnification, and hence are more expensive. In addition to being inexpensive, diopters have the advantage of being usable on multiple lenses as long as you have a set with a filter size that matches the largest filter ring size you will need. You do not lose any light with diopters, as you do with extension tubes.
Another option is the Vivitar 2x Macro Adapter. It was made in all popular SLR mounts. It is a high quality 2x teleconverter and has a helicoid for macro focusing. It's well made and when I do macro I use it with a variety of lenses on my OM. You do lose about 3 stops of light, but the same is true with extension tubes. The Vivitar is essentially a variable extension tube with a 7-element 2x lens assembly.
Another option is the Vivitar 2x Macro Adapter. It was made in all popular SLR mounts. It is a high quality 2x teleconverter and has a helicoid for macro focusing. It's well made and when I do macro I use it with a variety of lenses on my OM. You do lose about 3 stops of light, but the same is true with extension tubes. The Vivitar is essentially a variable extension tube with a 7-element 2x lens assembly.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
