Macro Photography

[Kalvaer]

They almost look like plastic toys. Nice shots

 

[Tosser]

What they said Pallbearer, nice shots.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I don't really follow this thread, so forgive me if this has been discussed. Canon's new Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM lens looked pretty good on paper, and the photozone review has been really good. Now dpreview did it too - linky. Looks fantastic!

 

[BigAl-sa]

I don't really follow this thread, so forgive me if this has been discussed. Canon's new Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM lens looked pretty good on paper, and the photozone review has been really good. Now dpreview did it too - linky. Looks fantastic!

Would love the IS. I find that these days I'm battling to keep the lens steady, and on macro shots that's a no-no.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Would love the IS. I find that these days I'm battling to keep the lens steady, and on macro shots that's a no-no.

Dude forget the IS! Did you see how sharp that lens is?

 

[BigAl-sa]

Dude forget the IS! Did you see how sharp that lens is?

Doesn't matter how sharp it is if you can't keep it still

I must admit though, my experience is that macro lenses are all stunningly sharp.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I must admit though, my experience is that macro lenses are all stunningly sharp.

The nearest thing I own to a Macro lens right now is my Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro, which is, well, stunningly blunt in its macro range.

I'm sorely tempted by this lens. I don't know why - I'm not into macro (not a lot of bugs where I live anyway), I don't do much portraiture. But I want one

 

[Kalvaer]

As a cheaper alternative. Have any of you tried the Raynox attachments? I bought this one from B&H http://raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr250/indexdcr250eg.htm and its really not bad.

My reason for getting it was seeing the Photos that Matt from SAinverts took with it on his Panasonic FZ50. You can see what I mean on these threads on another board.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1393145&postcount=147
and http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1399223&postcount=156

As to the IS... I really love having mine built into the Camera

 

[SubliminalThought]

Dude forget the IS! Did you see how sharp that lens is?

From all the reviews I've read is that in terms of sharpness the L is not worth the extra price tag compared to the old non-L 100mm macro. What you do pay for is the IS. As stated in the DPReview for macro the IS doesn't add that much as usually you're shooting with a tripod, but if you are using this lens as a portrait lens or a general lens the IS is worth it. I would stick with the non-L 100mm... fantastic lens at a great price!

 

[koffiejunkie]

That may be, but sharpness isn't the only thing this lens is good at. It has literally no distortions/aberrations, and it's bokeh is really really nice. I have been thinking of getting the 100mm f/2 for concerts etc, but this looks like a very appealing alternative.

 

[Kalvaer]

As stated in the DPReview for macro the IS doesn't add that much as usually you're shooting with a tripod

I'm sure Big-Al will agree with me since he started me on doing macro shots like this, But that's hardly ever the case unless your in a lab/photo studio of sorts.

I think if we look through this thread we'll see as well that almost all of them were taken out in the field to to speak. Most in places where it would be impossible to suddenly get the tripod, and set it up before the bee sitting on a flower flies away. Never mind Big-Al's acrobatic manoeuvres, trying to take photo's of spiders on the roof

 

[BigAl-sa]

From all the reviews I've read is that in terms of sharpness the L is not worth the extra price tag compared to the old non-L 100mm macro. What you do pay for is the IS. As stated in the DPReview for macro the IS doesn't add that much as usually you're shooting with a tripod, but if you are using this lens as a portrait lens or a general lens the IS is worth it. I would stick with the non-L 100mm... fantastic lens at a great price!

I've prolly taken more macro pics than most folks in this thread, and have used a tripod on two occasions. To me a tripod is a hindrance more than anything else with macro, especially bugs. Here my BiL showing how you should do it

 

[BigAl-sa]

The nearest thing I own to a Macro lens right now is my Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro, which is, well, stunningly blunt in its macro range.

Well, you already know that's not a macro lens

I'm sorely tempted by this lens. I don't know why - I'm not into macro (not a lot of bugs where I live anyway), I don't do much portraiture. But I want one

Do it, you won't be disappointed!

BTW, how does the UK price look?

 

[BigAl-sa]

I'm sure Big-Al will agree with me since he started me on doing macro shots like this, But that's hardly ever the case unless your in a lab/photo studio of sorts.

I think if we look through this thread we'll see as well that almost all of them were taken out in the field to to speak. Most in places where it would be impossible to suddenly get the tripod, and set it up before the bee sitting on a flower flies away. Never mind Big-Al's acrobatic manoeuvres, trying to take photo's of spiders on the roof

Sorry, I see you beat me to it

 

[koffiejunkie]

Do it, you won't be disappointed!

BTW, how does the UK price look?

£899 at the moment - coming down slowly:



It is, of course, below the 24-105L on my shopping list, so it's going to be a while.

EDIT: Wow, just yesterday I quoted £899. Today it's £739.99. - I like where this is going!
(the image is always current).

 

[matt loves telkom]

here is my fav macro..... its the best i can do with my camera

http://i37.tinypic.com/4trevs.jpg

 

[DotKomrade]

The other day I was reading in this thread about lens hacks for macro shots. I pulled my dad's old Pentax 50mm prime out and put it backwards in my Canon 5000 N and took some shots. Don't know if these classify as macro or not... They're not that sharp, and a bit noisy, but quite interesting. I'd like to try the lens with a digital SLR. I just did some basic curves on these 2 pics.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2696/4111990980_cfec829c02_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2766/4111989474_c01330f40b_b.jpg

 

[koffiejunkie]

Nice DotKomrade. Doing macro that way takes practise, especially if you don't have a solid reverse adapter. Which 50mm does your dad have? There are four models - f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.7 and f/2.0 - all of them are pretty sharp.

I'm still looking to get a reverse ring so I can use my Pentax 50mm f/1.4 on my 50D...

 

[DotKomrade]

Hey, thanks. This lens is a 1.7 SMC Pentax-m lens. I have an adapter to fit it onto my camera in the normal fashion, but for those pics I just slotted the lens barrel into the body of my camera...

 

[koffiejunkie]

Ha! The 1.7 is the sharpest one after the 1.4 - nice lens. I just sold mine after getting my hands on a mint 1.4.

So what you need is a K-mount reverse adapter, so you'll be able to mount it properly.