Good/Better/Best Macro for T3i
- Thread starter sanjosedave
- Start date
- Status
N
NiceShotSteve
Guest
Don't discount a good quality zoom. It doesn't necessarily have to be a "macro zoom" - just add a 2-element close-up lens or an extension tube. Then when you're done shooting flowers, you can use it for everyday shooting. (I use my Canon EF 70-200/4 IS in this manner with excellent results.)
Upvote
0
O
Orion
Guest
sanjosedave said:
For a T3i, just go with the 100mm f/2.8. It is really suppposed to me a L lens, if it wasn't for the difference in construction you get with L
It's tack sharp and has great bokeh. I would also recommend you get an extension tube set . . .not the Canon because it costs too much, but I haven't checked lately.
the 100mm NON IS and the new 100mm WITH IS are practically the same in picture quality, soit all comes down to whether or not you want to spend an extra $300 for ISO and build ($70-140 rebate is being offered on the 100mm IS)
P.S> try your best to not simply focus on flowers or insects. . . . be creative with macro. More fun!
Upvote
0
Orion said:
Another advantage of the non-L 100mm macro is you can get a cheap used one because they have been around so long that there are many in circulation plus better-off people sell them for getting the L version or a 70-200/2.8 (I got mine from a guy who argued that the zoom covers most of this close-distance needs). The L macro almost sells at its original price, so no use getting this from ebay.
Orion said:
I never thought of that - Which one *do* you recommend then?
Upvote
0
B
BK
Guest
Marsu42 said:
I've heard great things about the Kenko tubes. I wanted to warn people off of the Zeikos brand tubes though. I bought the Zeikos at the end of December and figured since I wouldn't be using them much that the plastic mounts would be fine. After trying them out I found that all three of the lens mounts had chips missing where the mount clips them in place. Zeikos wants $12.00 for shipping to get me a replacement set under their warranty. I'm outside of the return policy for Amazon and don't much feel like throwing good money after bad. I really don't want to chance little plastic bits floating about in my camera so I'll spring for the nicer tubes when I've got a little spare cash.
Stick with the metal mounts on the Kenko tubes.
Thanks everyone for the input on the macro lenses - I'm also in the market and appreciate everyone's input.
Upvote
0
I'm shooting with a 60D and the 60mm macro. I mostly use my camera for pictures of my pets which are boa constrictors. I mostly use this lens for close up and macro shots.
Boas aren't easy to get pictures of as they rarely sit still and when you get really close to them (like when using a macro lens), they tend to turn and dart the other way. The 60mm lens is great for getting close to them, but not too close and it's really sharp with gorgeous bokeh (IMO).
Here are a few shots I've taken recently (first two are actually "macro" and the third is just a "close up"). BTW, I have a "thing" for their eyes...
Hope that helps!
jb
Boas aren't easy to get pictures of as they rarely sit still and when you get really close to them (like when using a macro lens), they tend to turn and dart the other way. The 60mm lens is great for getting close to them, but not too close and it's really sharp with gorgeous bokeh (IMO).
Here are a few shots I've taken recently (first two are actually "macro" and the third is just a "close up"). BTW, I have a "thing" for their eyes...
Hope that helps!
jb
Upvote
0
Any better? It's a link to the full 18mp size...
http://www.deviantconstrictors.com/images/HighQuality/IMG_0674lg.JPG
Still handheld but I feel like it's sharper. 1/100 f5.6, right at 1:1 magnification
Here's the downsized version
I think that part of the inherent problems with macro photography is that at such close distances, the depth of field is close to paper thin. Obviously, skill (which I admit to having very little of), focus stacking, etc., can all compensate. But, it's tough...
http://www.deviantconstrictors.com/images/HighQuality/IMG_0674lg.JPG
Still handheld but I feel like it's sharper. 1/100 f5.6, right at 1:1 magnification
Here's the downsized version
I think that part of the inherent problems with macro photography is that at such close distances, the depth of field is close to paper thin. Obviously, skill (which I admit to having very little of), focus stacking, etc., can all compensate. But, it's tough...
Upvote
0
I wouldn't say these are bad shots. You are evidently very good at getting close to these snakes and your first three shots show attempts at interesting compositions. With some more practice and time spent analyzing reptile shots from professionals I think you can significantly improve.
I disagree that the top shots are taken with top gear. Very good gear often makes it easier, but many of the best shots I have seen used very low end gear. That being said, you will not be disappointed with the 100/2.8 IS macro.
It is true that sharpness and optics-wise the IS and non-IS versions are almost identical. However the IS, IMHO, completely sets this lens apart. It allows you to shoot at shutter speeds otherwise unthinkable in macro.
In terms of your last shot, this is just my opinion but I offer the following critique.
The #1 issue I see with many beginner's photographs is they attempt to put too much in the shot. This is an issue with this shot. The green tuft (moss?) is distracting. I am also unsure whether this is a portrait of the snake's head or just the eye. The nostril seems to indicate this is a shot of the head, but then it is missing another nostril. Keep things simple. Decide what you want your subject to be and remove everything else.
Your DOF also confuses slightly. I would like to see a touch more DOF - such as F8.
I believe you are following most of the proper technique already - handheld, no flash, and no AF.
I disagree that the top shots are taken with top gear. Very good gear often makes it easier, but many of the best shots I have seen used very low end gear. That being said, you will not be disappointed with the 100/2.8 IS macro.
It is true that sharpness and optics-wise the IS and non-IS versions are almost identical. However the IS, IMHO, completely sets this lens apart. It allows you to shoot at shutter speeds otherwise unthinkable in macro.
In terms of your last shot, this is just my opinion but I offer the following critique.
The #1 issue I see with many beginner's photographs is they attempt to put too much in the shot. This is an issue with this shot. The green tuft (moss?) is distracting. I am also unsure whether this is a portrait of the snake's head or just the eye. The nostril seems to indicate this is a shot of the head, but then it is missing another nostril. Keep things simple. Decide what you want your subject to be and remove everything else.
Your DOF also confuses slightly. I would like to see a touch more DOF - such as F8.
I believe you are following most of the proper technique already - handheld, no flash, and no AF.
Upvote
0
kirispupis said:
While this is often debated, I'm confident to say: no, it does not! The effect of the IS decreases when the magnification increases, until it is almost negligible at 1:1. You cannot expect to get 4 stops of improvement with macro and IS.
The reason to get the 100L is a) better dust/sand resistance due to weather sealing, b) dual-use as a portrait lens, c) hybrid IS at non-macro distances which can eliminate some shake when coupled with a good (i.e. 7D) servo af.
If one often shoots with a tripod (this is very often the case w/ macro, and of course focus stacking) or at real close macro distances, I'd advice for anyone on a budget to get a much cheaper non-L version and put the remaining money in another good lens - other L primes are sharper than the macros esp. at open aperture.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
