#21  
Old 21-10-2011, 08:47 PM
PCH's Avatar
PCH (Paul)
Registered User

PCH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 2,175
Guys,

can I assume that these lenses we're talking about will fit the 400D?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 21-10-2011, 08:53 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,827
Sure can.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 21-10-2011, 08:57 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,827
I'd steer clear of the 180L for now. I have it and it's a bit of a beast to wield, not for the inexperienced IMO. Around 100, ie the 90-105, is ideal tradeoff between working distance, ease of use, and cost.

The 60mm Canon I'm pretty sure is EF-S, which means it'll work on your 400D and the 60D range, but not on the full frame 5D, 1D etc.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 21-10-2011, 09:01 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,827
From memory, these are the lenses I used:

Canon 100 non-IS: http://www.flickr.com/photos/troypig...57608626105810
Sigma 105: http://www.flickr.com/photos/troypig...7608626105810/
Sigma 150: http://www.flickr.com/photos/troypig...7608626105810/
MPE65: http://www.flickr.com/photos/troypig...7608626105810/

Can't find Tamron 90 shots or 180L shots ATM
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 21-10-2011, 09:04 PM
PCH's Avatar
PCH (Paul)
Registered User

PCH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 2,175
Troy,

thanks for that. That's a valuable consideration and worth pointing out. I'm steering towards the 100mm f2.8 non IS as it has been recommended by two or three contributors in this discussion.

All the best Troy
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 21-10-2011, 09:08 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,985
Paul, DWI have an Australian number you can ring to check and confirm stock. I've found DWI to be excellent, fast service excellent prices.

Last edited by acropolite; 22-10-2011 at 09:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 21-10-2011, 09:20 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCH View Post
Troy,

thanks for that. That's a valuable consideration and worth pointing out. I'm steering towards the 100mm f2.8 non IS as it has been recommended by two or three contributors in this discussion.

All the best Troy
So has the Tamron 90
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 21-10-2011, 10:00 PM
naskies's Avatar
naskies (Dave)
Registered User

naskies is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,865
Paul,

I honestly think that you'd be happy with any/all of the macro lenses suggested in this thread. Choose one and enjoy!

If you're looking for a bit more info, I personally like reading the reviews on The-Digital-Picture.com:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Many of the "cool" effects you see with macro photography are due to good camera technique, lighting, and being able to get close enough to the critters. Here are a few random macros I've taken with the Canon 100 mm macros (both IS and non-IS). They probably would have been identical with the Tamron.

By the way, flash is extremely useful for macro photography: if you don't have an external hotshoe flash, you'll probably be tempted in the near future if you get hooked on macros. In the mean time, you can do wonders with your internal flash (e.g. Google "diy macro flash diffuser").

Macro lenses can be used for portraits since they're telephoto lenses and extremely sharp. However, they're not necessarily the most flattering portrait lenses because they're designed for accurate reproductions of images and colours - i.e. it's usually not considered very flattering to show all the sweat pores on someone's oily, pale white, pimply face super accurately in a portrait

Good luck and have fun!


Cheers,

Dave
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Baguette.jpg)
79.8 KB10 views
Click for full-size image (Nori.jpg)
145.4 KB12 views
Click for full-size image (SmokedSalmon.jpg)
191.2 KB10 views
Click for full-size image (BeeWithPollen.jpg)
135.3 KB10 views
Click for full-size image (Butterfly-1.jpg)
83.1 KB16 views
Click for full-size image (Dragonfly.jpg)
111.6 KB11 views
Click for full-size image (Flies.jpg)
138.7 KB16 views
Click for full-size image (StSwithunRose.jpg)
141.9 KB12 views
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 21-10-2011, 10:31 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Put a Canon to your head. You deserve it.

Personally, I have no faith in third party lenses. The reason is because I use Digital Photo Professional (Canon's own software) to process my images. All the vignetting, distortions and chromatic aberration can be removed from your images with the selection of 3 boxes and the click of the OK button. Good luck trying to do that with non-Canon lenses (you will have to use some other software).

H
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 22-10-2011, 12:29 AM
PCH's Avatar
PCH (Paul)
Registered User

PCH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 2,175
H, Paul, Troy and Phil

thanks for those thoughts guys. Troy you are of course right, the Tamron does have some support.

However, I'm thinking that after freight, there's not that much difference really between the two cost wise ($389 ish for the Tamron v $535 ish for the Canon).

And as Dave points out, both will be perfectly fine. But I can only buy one. I have the Canon DPP s/w that H talks of, so the ease of putting the final touches to pics must count for something.

I'll sleep on it. Thanks so much gents, for your patience, and invaluable input.

All the best
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 22-10-2011, 05:14 AM
AndyK's Avatar
AndyK (Andy)
VK2AAK

AndyK is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Darawank NSW 2428 Australia
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCH View Post
... Andy, Mark, Greg, Dave - do you guys agree or disagree with this course of action?

Cheers
Agree. I have that lens and it's excellent. It consistently ranks among the top Canon lenses in the photographic community. Google "Canon lens ranking" and choose the bobatkins site. You'll find a list of lenses there ranked by actual users. Both the IS and non-IS versions of the 100 macro are in the top 20. If you look at the list of best lenses under $600 you'll see the non-IS 100mm macro in first place.

As someone has already mentioned, flash is important with macro. You're often very close to the subject and this can mean obscuring much of the available light. If you decide to get into macro more seriously you might trawl EBay for the Canon ring flash. It fits on the front of the Canon macro lenses and makes life much easier.

In addition to what Humayun has said, keep in mind that once you settle for a given brand you're buying into a "system". It doesn't matter whether it's Canon, Nikon or whatever ... If you stick to the system you know things will work consistently together. I'm not trying to put you off third-party lenses or accessories. Many, including the macro lenses mentioned in this thread, are very good performers and represent good value ... but there can be some pitfalls too ... such as possibly discovering that things like the macro flash units don't fit the lens.

Last edited by AndyK; 22-10-2011 at 05:40 AM. Reason: I'm chronically indecisive and keep adding stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 22-10-2011, 07:44 AM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
re lens

There was a review on this lens (canon EF 100 mm F 2.8 non IS) on a forum by a chap that took macro images for stamp collectors,for insurance-that was his full time job.Has this lens and he stated that it took many tens of thousands of images,and he has replaced the camera body 6 times,but not the lens-it still worked as it did on day one-now that says a lot for this fine lens.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 22-10-2011, 09:42 AM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,985
Paul, what Humayan said about genuine Canon has relevance as well. Quality control on the other brands can be spotty, it's not unheard of to get a bad copy of an otherwise well regarded lens from both Tamron and Sigma. My preference is to buy genuine Canon, I've had just 2 Sigma Lenses, the first (17-70) was excellent, but after a period it's AF developed front focus issues and the second (the latest 12-24 Zoom) can only be described as anysmal (very poor sharpness).
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 22-10-2011, 12:00 PM
PCH's Avatar
PCH (Paul)
Registered User

PCH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 2,175
Hi Guys,

wow, there are some very interesting points being raised that, as a bit of a beginner, I'd never have thought of on my own. So thanks to you all for raising these points.

@Andy - sure, I understand about buying into the 'system'. That may have certain pricing limitations, but as you point out, generally things just 'work' when the parts are all from the same place.

@Chris - great news Chris! It's always encouraging to see your choice ranks so well consistently. And that is a fascinating comment about the number of bodies that guys lens has worked it's way through !!

@Phil - Yes, I can understand the after-market lenses may not have the same consistency as the bigger names, and I hear what you're saying about 'genuine' labels being more consistently up to scratch.

Thanks guys, - to all who have taken the time and trouble to offer replies and helpful suggestions. It has been genuinely much appreciated.

After some deliberation and consideration, I'll get the Canon 100mm F2.8 non IS. It can't be a bad choice, - so here goes. Fingers crossed
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 22-10-2011, 12:05 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Congrats, matey. Top choice.

Use it for head/shoulder portraits, it's a stunner.

I did a wedding yesterday, and the 85mm f/1.8 didn't come off one of my bodies the whole day. 85-105mm is an awesome portrait range.

H
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 22-10-2011, 12:09 PM
PCH's Avatar
PCH (Paul)
Registered User

PCH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 2,175
Thanks H,

I'm looking orward to getting and using it
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22-10-2011, 12:13 PM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCH View Post
Hi Guys,

wow, there are some very interesting points being raised that, as a bit of a beginner, I'd never have thought of on my own. So thanks to you all for raising these points.

@Andy - sure, I understand about buying into the 'system'. That may have certain pricing limitations, but as you point out, generally things just 'work' when the parts are all from the same place.

@Chris - great news Chris! It's always encouraging to see your choice ranks so well consistently. And that is a fascinating comment about the number of bodies that guys lens has worked it's way through !!

@Phil - Yes, I can understand the after-market lenses may not have the same consistency as the bigger names, and I hear what you're saying about 'genuine' labels being more consistently up to scratch.

Thanks guys, - to all who have taken the time and trouble to offer replies and helpful suggestions. It has been genuinely much appreciated.

After some deliberation and consideration, I'll get the Canon 100mm F2.8 non IS. It can't be a bad choice, - so here goes. Fingers crossed

You will certainly have a lot of fun and enjoyment with that great lens,that price you mention from DWI plus postage and insurance is very reasonable,all my last 4 parcels from DWI have taken less than 3 days to arrive in country QLD.a recent parcel from Melbourne took 14 days (no wonder so many people get stuff from OS these days).

There is nothing wrong with the other brand of macros mentioned,they all give good sharp results.But as mentioned when a system is adopted its just best to get all the same brand-so all dovetails well in the field,there is nothing worse than trying to do something in the field and fighting with the gear.As Dennis Simions says,when you have really good gear it blends into the back ground,and you forget about it,and can concentrate on you task or assignment.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22-10-2011, 12:26 PM
PCH's Avatar
PCH (Paul)
Registered User

PCH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 2,175
Chris,

thanks mate, - I'm looking forward to it. A shame DWI don't work on the weekend though
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22-10-2011, 01:03 PM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCH View Post
Chris,

thanks mate, - I'm looking forward to it. A shame DWI don't work on the weekend though

Ordered my son's 600D after lunch on a Friday,it arrived on the Monday morning in Country QLD at 8.30 am,Cannot believe how good DWI is I never even bother looking around any more when I need new Canon gear-just do it all online,and it arrives so quick-When I use to order gear from Gold Coast camera shop it always took 7 days (its only two hours drive away)and the parcel always looked damaged.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 22-10-2011, 01:42 PM
PCH's Avatar
PCH (Paul)
Registered User

PCH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 2,175
Chris,

wow, that is impressive ! I'm ordering right away
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 05:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement