Discussion in 'Digital Discussion & Q&A' started by PhilGarber, Nov 17, 2008.
I have chosen tripod over lens. Thanks to all!
which model is the macro lens you are looking at?
Go for the tripod man you can use it for so muh stuff. IMPO
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS
Got one of those!
Its not a true macro lens though - what is has is a close focusing ability which lets you focus at 0.5m away from a subject which will let you fill the frame with something like the size of a flower head - this is not enough to get those really close images of insects, not to get a fly to fill a frame.
something like this:
That said its a decent allrounder lens - softer at 300mm when used as a telephoto, but sharp enough to be a good flower macro lens (or similar sized subject). If you can I would try for the APO edition of the lens since it has better lens coatings and gives an improved result. Your profil lists you camera and kit lens as your only kit - unless you have a love of landscapes or long exposure shots then this could be the lens for you.
however it does need and benefit greatly from a tripod support does this lens - - $140 though migh get you a good set of tripod legs, but I think it too little for a tripod legs and head (guessing US prices here).
Really you have to work out what you need:
1) a tripod - a stable setup
2) a 70-300mm zoom lens with close focusing
3) a true macro lens - this means saving longer sadly.
I say go for the tripod. Might not be as much fun to unwrap Christmas morning, but I think it would be more useful. Getting both would be the best thing, but it doesn't sound like that's going to be an option...
On the other hand... That 70-300 will give you a lot more range than the lens you have now, but once you start using it you may wish you had a tripod.
Tough decision. A new lens is definitely a lot more fun, but a tripod is a much needed accessory too.
Go with the Sigma 70-300. I have the APO version of that and I used it on every macro, insect and animal photograph on my site if you want some more examples. I always use a flash with the macros and doing so provides excellent results. I think you'll have a ton more fun with the 70-300 but pony up for the APO version if at all possible.
Macrolens without tripod is borderline usless.
i never used my tripod when shooting macro.
The 70-300 is a good lens, but i wouldnt think too much of the macro bit. It gets you a 1:2 ratio, which can be fun. But it isnt as sharp as the 105mm sigma macro i have. And sharpness is rather important when shooting bugs or something. Not saying it isnt a good lens for the money, cause it is. I just wouldnt buy it if you really want to go into macro photography.
Really? Damn. My hands are definitely not steady enough for that. It's hard enough to get something in focus with that tiny DOF.
Actually come to think of it this would probably matter less on 1:2 macro
garbz how do you shoot macro? If your trying for handheld you really need a flash (something other than a popup) so that you can get your shutter speed up;
I tend to use roughly these settings;
f13-16, ISO 200, 1/160-1/200sec (mostly a copy of doenoe)
and yes focus is tricky, I find keep the focus static and moving the camera back and forth easier, the only time I adjust the focus is if the subject won't fit the frame (when I notice).
I also handhold all my "macros". The 70-300 APO is an excellent lens for what it does. Sure it's not as sharp as the Sigma 105 or Tamron 90, but when you stop down to f/12-f/16 and use a flash it's still pretty dang sharp.
That said, a Tamron 90mm f2.8 is most likely my next purchase to replace the 70-300 as a macro lens.
Separate names with a comma.