My next lens will be a macro lens :)

JeffieLove

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
15
Location
Elkton, MD
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
This was the best I could do...

This spider was on the railing on my deck and I wanted to see if it was a lynx spider... This was zoomed all the way in on a tamron 18-200 on full auto mode... I'm not sure if it would have helped if I had gone in manual or not...

001.jpg
 
Is the abdomen of the spider has a symbol that looks like a violin shape?
 
I don't know - I didn't look close enough - I am scared to death of spiders ;) lol
 
Or you can do the sane thing and get the 3 in 1 set of kenko AF tubes for a lot less than it would cost for the same length in Canon official tubes ( way way overpriced)
AEXTUBEDGC Kenko DG Auto Extension Tube Set for the Canon EOS AF Mount.

All they add is distance and air so image quality is identicle for both - though avoide the ultra cheap tubes (the $10 sort) since they don't have electrical contacts and you need those to control your lens.

You might also consider a Raynox Diopter/macro filter like the DCR250 or DCR150. Works like the extension tubes, but whilst tubes work better on shorter focal lengths the diopters work better on longer focal lengths (ie gives more magnification)
 
well, the tamron lens is my mom's... (haha, we all know how that goes by now, right?)

So the longest focal length I have is my kit lens :( That's why I was just going to get a macro lens...

Would it be a better idea to just get a better zoom lens (like my mom's and since I want one anyway) and then get the tubes on top of that?
 
Tubes would work better on your kit lens (and even better still on your 50mm f1.8) than on the 18-200mm lens. The (very rough) maths is that to get a regular lens to true macro you add the same length of tubes as you have focal length - so for 50mm around 50mm of tubes is what you need - the kenko gives you more than you need toget into real macro.
you will have a very short distance to focus in and using tubes also results in the lens not being able to focus on anything far off (how far depends on the lens and the tube length added).
 
Correct if you want macro now the tubes will give you what you need with your current 50mm lens - however if you want a longer reaching lens (I seem to recall some contention over you wanting one of those ;)) then the lens you link to would be the better choice.
This lens here though:
508101 Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Tele Zoom Lens for Canon EOS Cameras
might be a better choice (I've no idea how its image quality stands up against the 50-200mm you linked to). Its macro is not true macro and only half life size so it would give you work like this:
Random K 1000 - a set on Flickr
at the most magnification. Also make sure you go for the APO edition, the older 70-300mm is noticably softer at the longer 200-300mm end
 
so there is a $60 price difference in the two lenses (the one I linked and the one you linked) and there is a 100mm focal length difference...

Do you think the tamron would be better out of the 2?

I am also interested in doing moon shots and possibly getting some shooting stars at some point... Which do you think would be better for that? (I am thinking the sigma because of the longer focal length...)
 
Like I said I've no idea how the two lenses would match up image quality wise at the 200mm end - whilst the 70-200mm is longer the 50-200mm is also a lot wider so each is covering a long focal range change.
 
If you can, just save up for a Canon 100mm f2.8 (~$500) and get an awesome macro lens that is also awesome for portraits and other uses. I get mine in less than a month! :D
 
What does she mean when she is saying a flipped 50mm???

How is she flipping her lens?
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top