Looking for Wide Angle/Macro lenses

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by Lanimilbus, Jul 11, 2005.

  1. Lanimilbus

    Lanimilbus TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    I’m looking for both a Wide-Angle lens and a Macro lens…they both need to be 52mm threaded in the back so they’ll work with the adapter for my camera, but other than that, I’m just looking for anything that’s relatively inexpensive (under $150) and is of a high quality. For the wide angle lens, I’m really not sure what to look for…some use “magnification” as specs, such as “.07x” and others use millimeters as their specs, such as “28mm.” Could someone explain to me what these mean in terms of a wide angle lens, and what magnification/millimeters I should be looking for if I want to photograph wide landscapes, such as mountains, AND live musical performances, where I can get more of an angle and more of the performer’s body into the picture? I heard that the wider the lens and picture the lesser the quality…so I don’t necessarily want a super-wide angle, but something significantly more expansive than the lens I have now would be nice.

    As for a Macro lens…I’m looking for anything that will get me substantially more detail and closeness that I have now, without losing depth or quality. I’m looking for something that can get me the closeness of an image such as this: http://eyes1.busythumbs.com/users/a/ahemes/eyes1/images/1109980722filizophy_inside_outside.jpg

    If anyone has any suggestions, recommendations, advice, tips, help etc., I’d love to hear it, and it would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks.
     
  2. thebeginning

    thebeginning TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,795
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Texas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    whoa weird i have a shot just like that. not quite that close though. anyway, to your question. what camera are you using? the only way to buy lenses that have macro capabilities that close is if you are using an SLR. also, whoever told you that the wider the lens the lesser the quality isnt totally correct. there are many very very sharp wide lenses, like canon's 17-40L and 10-22mm. again, i must ask what camera you are using. for a 35mm film camera, a 20mm would be plenty wide (even a 28mm would) enough angle for landscape shots. as for more of the performers body in the picture, that is the opposite from a wide angle lens. a wide angle lens makes everything seem smaller in the picture so it can fit more in there (gosh, that was technical). to get more of the performer in the image, you need a larger milimeter lens, or you need to get closer. also, it's very hard if not impossible to buy a macro lens of very high quality for under $150. there are some, like sigma's 105mm f2.8 1:1 macro lens that are cheap and very good, but those start at around $300 at least. as for the 52mm thread in the BACK, i have no idea where to go with that. does that mean you have to attach adapter lenses instead of actual mount lenses?
     
  3. Rob

    Rob TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    London
    I suspect that you have a digital camera and that you're thinking more about attachments, rather than lenses per se. Perhaps you can provide a little more info on what you've got already and we can help more successfully.

    Magnification generally refers to the effect on what would have happened anyway. A 2x teleconverter will make a lens twice as long i.e. double it's length.

    Length on 35mm film photography lenses is generally based from 50mm which is approximately what the human eye sees in terms of magnification (1x). Lenses go up to massive telephoto say 1000mm, which is 40x, down to wide-angles such as 12.5mm which could be expressed as 0.25x "normal". Larger the mm = longer the lens = bigger the distance you can be from a full-frame subject like a person or a mountain.

    A wide angle lens attachment of .07x would make a 50mm lens into a 3.5mm lens which is supsiciously wide.

    For landscape, as thebeginning suggested, 28mm is considered a desirable length. Lenses have a habit of getting distortion at the edges when going shorter, and they cost you much more to get the same light capabilities. This is especially true below 20mm, so if you want an image with no fish-eye effect distortion, then for your budget you may wish to stick around 28mm length.

    For macro work, I need the answer to my above question.

    Oh, I forgot to say welcome to the forum!

    Rob
     
  4. Lanimilbus

    Lanimilbus TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0

Share This Page