Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 20, 2004, 9:15 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

I went looking at lenses for the rebel yesterday. I had thought of getting a 28-135 lens to use for macro and other shots, I thought it would be a good all round lens. The guy I spoke to seems very into the cameras and his opinion was that Im wasting my money getting that if I want to get good macro shots, His opinion is that the 28-135 is not going to be much better macro wise that the kit lens the rebel came with. He thinks I should look at a 60m designated macro lens.

Also I asked about the 200-500 zoom for wildlife, and after I got back off the floor:-) after hearing the prices he suggested a two by lens to put on my 90-300 lens. Does anyone know what sort of shots the two by on the 300 will achieve. It looks like for a bigger lens that for the moment, a two by is all I can afford.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 20, 2004, 9:20 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

well, a 2x teleconverter, a 300mm will give you..................

300 x 1.6 = 480 x 2 = 960mm

of course, it won't be very fast (arperture will be higher, so less light...)

but....IT'S 960MM!!!



Vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2004, 3:23 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

The 1.6x is excellent marketing IMO --getting people to believe that they get more when they get smaller sensors.

You can bump that up to 2x by the same logic by cropping some more off the image and then enlarging the print.

1.6x does fill the frame more so than full frame, but that's only because the edges are cropped off due to a smaller sensor. It's OK to think of things this way if you're concerned about image framing, but if you're concerned about object size / distance as you would be for wildlife, then note that all you've done is cropped some parts of the image out. The image will be no bigger than it would be on a full frame / film camera, but the relative size of the image to the frame will be bigger, because the frame is smaller.

If your lens is f/5.6 or greater, then putting a TC on it would cause you to lose autofocus (and darken it significantly at the same time).

Real macro lenses are nice, and you can also use them for other purposes. The Tamron 90 f/2.8 is well-regarded. Some people say that there are no bad true macro lenses, because if you're in the market for a true macro lens, then you're probably not going to buy a junk lens.

Extention tubes can substitue cheaply for real macro lenses. I'd suggest trying & comparing them to real macro lenses at the store. Third party extentions can be cheaper, and because they have no optics, this should not be a problem.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2004, 4:13 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

thanks
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2004, 4:18 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 19
Default

The thing about adding a TC, other than losing two f-stops for a 2x tc, is that they don't enable a zoom lens to get any closer to the subject, but they do zoom closer. Also the picture won't be as sharp, most time they'll be sufficient for personal purposes though, and then there's the real possibility of CA and light distortion. Whereas with a true macro lens, you are able to get very close to your subject for clean crisp shots without the two stop loss.
Now, for the extension tubes, they are a good alternative to use with a prime and sometimes a shorter zoom. As said, the air is free since there is no glass. Kenko makes a good set of three for about $130 USD. It's actually cheaper to buy the set than buying them seperate. I believe Kenko has a 12mm, 20mm, and 36mm in the set, giving a total overall addition of 68mm if you stack them.
The other main difference between an extension tube and a TC is that with the tubes, you lose infinity focus but keep the two f-stops, making them not usefull for normal picture use. As with a TC you keep infinity but lose two f-stops making them for use outdoors during the daylight hours.

It's a personal choice and only you can weigh the pros' and cons of the two for yourself.
SkippyTheWonderPuppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2004, 9:36 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

aladyforty

You can only take picture of flowers with the 28-135 IS USM in the macro range:
http://www.pbase.com/nhl/p_flowers

ie it won't take good pictures of insects for example


IMO Madwand is correct there's no such thing as a 'bad' macro lens, actually a lot of 3rd party lenses exceed the OEMs in this area...

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2004, 10:13 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Two thngies,

1 TC's are usually not designed to work well with short lenses <200mm.

2 If you want to do macro pick up a set of Kenko or Canon(if you want to pay 2x as much) extension rings.

They are empty rings that sit between your lens and the camera and let you focus much closer than normal. (you do lose stops of light)

You can also get closeup diopter's from several manufacturers like canon/nikon that screw into your lens like a filter and let you close focus, no light loss with these.


PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2004, 9:52 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

thanks, will look into all that now:-)
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2004, 10:49 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The other name of the "rings" that PeterP mentioned are Extention Tubes. They work very well and are very cheap. Are they as good as a Macro lens? No. But they allow you to focus closer than you would be able to otherwise, which effectively enlarges the subject in the picture.

I would suggest the Kenko set of 3 (12mm, 20mm, 25mm Something like that.) And you can stack them. You loose somewhere around a 1/3 or more of a stop of light (depends on how much "tube length" you use) with them, so it isn't free. But they are very handy to have.

Oh, did I mention that they are cheap? Compared to a macro lens, they are a steal. Around 40-60 bucks for the set of 3 I believe.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2004, 8:03 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

thanks Eric, at the moment Im just browsing what I can purchase for the rebel. I think if I go into one of my obsessions for macro I will try the rings first. Right now Im more into birds and wildlife more than anything else as you may have noticed:-)
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:41 AM.