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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 4, 2007, 9:37 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Hello all,

I would like to purchase a fisheye and amacro for my 30D. Does anyone have any suggestions? I would like something, should I decide to upgrade camera later that I would be able to still use.Thanks in advance for your help.
StormyMooN is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 4, 2007, 11:06 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Except for one EF-S most macros are full-frame so if you stay away from that 60mm you should be fine!
I don't know of any non full-frame fisheye... :idea:
(the Tokina 10-17 fisheye is a 'digital' only zoom)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2007, 9:16 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI - Can one get a better macro (full-frame) than this? :idea:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...755444#p755444
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2007, 11:33 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
sjburges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 106
Default

On the macro side, what are you wanting to shoot? It makes a big difference.

If you'd like to get the occasional really-close-up, you might consider just getting a set of extension tubes and use it with whatever lenses you've got now. They're much cheaper, and do basically the same job as a macro lens - the downside is you have to unmount the lens to change the amount of extension. Really not a big deal, and they're pretty light to put in your bag (no lenses in them). If you've got a "macro" zoom (that goes to say 1:2), you can probably get it all the way to 1:1 or a little beyond with a set of tubes. If you're doing documentary work where a flat depth of field is important, this isn't an approach you want to take, but otherwise its not a bad option.

If you really want the convenience of a macro lens and don't mind the weight, the next thing you need to decide is the focal length (true macro lenses as a rule are NOT zoom lenses). The shorter you go the more depth of field you get (a really big deal in at 1:1), but the less working distance (a really big deal if shooting live subjects that are skittish). Anywhere from 50mm to 150mm is available, and most prime macros are pretty good lenses so its hard to go wrong. For these, they also make really nice lenses for other work too. The Auto Focus is generally comparatively glacial on macro lenses, so don't try it for action stuff - stick to having it as an extra portrait. Expect to spend in the $350+ range.

If you're wanting to shoot exclusively at or past 1:1 magnification (up to 5:1), Canon makes an MP-E 65 that is pretty unique. Its not cheap in any sense of the word. You'll really need a macro rail or other micro adjustment for this guy, as well as requisite lighting/brackets (not necessarily the dedicated macro flashes, but again it depends on what you're shooting for). Unlike most macro lenses, this isn't something you can use for anything else - it starts at 1:1 and goes closer from there. If you really want that bug mugshot, or like taking really close-up shots of minerals or other such objects, this one can really do the trick in the right hands. Its $800+ for the lens, plus a bunch of accessories that are practically requirements for this kind of work that can run as much or more.

I don't know squat about fisheyes, hopefully someone else will pipe up.
sjburges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2007, 7:53 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Well, I want to use it to shoot flowers, insects and close ups of the babies.

The fisheye I'm just looking to play around with for the distortion purposes.
StormyMooN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 12:38 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
sjburges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 106
Default

For insects, you probably want a full macro setup. If you want something that'll let you shoot dragonflies eyeballs and see the hundreds of little facets, getting something that can go 1:1 or better (either a macro lens and/or extension tubes on your existing lenses) is a requirement. You'l need to decide how close you think you can get to your target, and get an appropriate lens for that. The longer the focal length, the further from your subject you can be at 1:1, but they're heavier and more expensive too. I'd recommend something in the 100mm range for most purposes, unless you have lots of money to spend. You'll almost definately want to spend some money on flashes too - somthing light that you can position well (on a "butterfly bracket", or a screw mount on the lens) is recommended.

Its probably not required to go 1:1 for baby pics, or most flower pics (though I've got plenty of both, the former of which makes people think I'm a bit odd getting a full frame of bellybutton or earlobe). A macro will make fine lenses for these too, with the caveat that you might have to back across the room to get the munchkin in frame (and mine always tries chasing me when the camera's out, so that doesn't work so well).

I don't think the MP-E 65 is really the right lens for what you're looking for. If you get really into the insects, maybe then. Try looking at something like the Sigma 105mm macro, or Canon 100mm USM, or maybe one the 60mm ones if you plan on using it more for baby pics/portraits than bug pics (there's a 60mm Canon EF-S mount now that might be worth a look). Good luck!
sjburges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 7:25 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
I would like something, should I decide to upgrade camera later that I would be able to still use. Thanks in advance for your help.
-> If your plan is to upgrade later then the full-frame Sigma 70mm f/2.8 might be a better choice (if shorter macro is your preference) - it looks like this Sigma even exceeds the superb EF-S 60 (which only work on cropped sensor cameras) in performance: http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...-macro-af.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2007, 4:40 AM   #8
Member
 
dougsmit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 90
Default

Fisheyes need to be selected keeping in mind the camera body. The difference between a full frame body and a 1.6x cropper like the 30D makes the difference of a 'sort of' fisheye and something really extreme. For the 30D, I suggest either one of the 8mm lenses (I have the Peleng but the Sigma is out there for those with cash to spend). Most versatile on crop bodies would be the Tokina 10-17 which I do not have but suspect I'd use it at 10mm most of the time. On a full frame body the extreme effect is given by the 15-16mm options with the 8mm entering a completely new area producing a circular image.

I have a lot of opinions on the matter of fisheyes on crop bodies posted:
http://home.comcast.net/~dougsmit/fisheye.html

On both macro and fisheye, there is no single best lens. Macro users will run into situations where a 50mm would be best and others where 150mm will be better. Some uses of fisheye look better with the more controlled 15-16 option but I'd still take an 8mm if I could have just one.


Don't forget to investigate fisheye and macro at the same time (8mm Peleng at nearest focus distance):

dougsmit 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 2:00 PM.