View Full Version : Which macro lense for a Cannon 400D?
andyseatrout
06-06-08, 20:19
My girlfriend has bought a camera and is in the process of buying some lenses.
I am under the impression that the 100mm lense would be very good for coral and fish photography, but she is undecided between the 60mm and 100mm.
She feels that she will get a much better depth of field with the 60mm lense as opposed to the 100mm. She wants to be able to get an entire flower in focus for example, rather than just part of it with the rest being out of focus. She does not have any intrest in coral / fish photography!
Could anyone shed any light on this matter? Would a 60mm lense be just as good as 100mm for coral and fish photography?
Stevie Lee
08-06-08, 12:46
have a look at the tamron 90mm macro. alot cheaper than the canon. A lot of tests put it on par with the cannon 100mm, and in some cases better. Not seen many people use the 60mm for tank shots. you dont get the reach with 60mm so would only allow you to macro stuff close to the glass.
HTH
Stevie
just reread your post nothing to do with tank photography. Have a look on http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php. There is a macro section she may get an idea from what other people are using.
Stevie
I have the Tamron not a great deal of difference to the Canon except a few £££ saved.
andyseatrout
08-06-08, 23:11
Thanks for the advice guys.
Too late - she bought the canon 100mm macro.
Very good by all accounts; just a shame I can't work the camera, or fit whole fish into a frame!
Very good by all accounts; just a shame I can't work the camera, or fit whole fish into a frame!
Join the club:D
The 100mm canon is by far a better lens you made the right choice
The 100mm canon is by far a better lens you made the right choice
No its not, most reviews don't put much between them.
No its not, most reviews don't put much between them.
I don't really read reviews much nothing like finding out for yourself ive used both an found the Canon much more sharper
Reef bloke
17-06-08, 12:02
Having used both albeit it briefly with regards to the Tamron id rate them pretty much of a muchness with regards to sharpness.
The Canon is slightly longer so will be slightly better suited to deeper tanks.The Canon also doesn't grow when focusing and has a quieter motor.That said you pays the extra squids for that privilege.
Both very good lenses and both produce superb macro's.
I don't really read reviews much nothing like finding out for yourself ive used both an found the Canon much more sharper
interesting comment - any images to demonstrate your apparent expertise?
Having spent a lot of time with Macro Lenses and owned both the 60mm and 100mm Canon and tested the Tamron I've got to say I'd take the Canon 100mm any day! I reckon your girlfriend made the right choice!
The Canon if you check the likes of DPReview you'll find is a reasonable lense with great speed at f/2.8 plus the extra distance using the 100mm gives you that bit of extra distance, and with Macro thats pretty much what its all about. Also of course the 100mm is a standard EF lense so if you change to a full frame camera later on then you won't have to replace the lense unless your new camera supports the EFS mount. Finally on the 400D you're effectively getting 160mm with the 100mm with it crop factor of 1.6 where as with the 60mm you're at 60mm as its an EFS lense
As to Tamron, they're the lower end lenses in the market and one I'd avoid at all costs. If I wasn't buying Canon then I'd look at Sigma but that would generally be as far as I go. Sigma is slightly more expensive that the Tamron but the quality of the lense makes it worth while and its quality of the lense that counts, remember a lense is something you may get 10 - 15 years out of so worth spending the extra money on when buying. These days I've gone with the Canon Macro 180mm and MPE-65 which are exceptional lenses but I'm actually looking for another Macro and it'll probably be the 100mm for me. I've looked at the Canon 50mm f/2.5 which is an okay lense and its great for speed at 2.5 but the quality could be better.
Good Luck with the lense and camera. But I would suggest one major thing! Take a photography course and learn to use the camera properly. It was one of the best things I did when I got into photography and so glad I did. My skills improved drastically and it shows in the quality of my shots, also made me want to learn more as well and this is a hobby where you're constantly learning
BigD
--- Canon 1DS Mark III, Canon 180mm Macro, Canon MPE-65 Macro, Canon 16-35 2.8, Canon 24-70 2.8, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, Canon 300mm 4.0 ---
it shows in the quality of my shots
again, none of which appear to be on here! Can you post shots or a link to shots please?
I am also looking at the Cannon lens although i must admit i have been for a while, is there anyone who can post some macro shots using this leans and as Clippo says i would love to see some stunning images with the Cannon lens just to push me over the edge to buying one.
:thanks:
I've used the canon 100mm and own a Tamron 90mm and I would say that optically they are the same.
The Canon is better quality build and has faster smoother focusing but if the picture quality is all that is important to you and you want to save some pennies, then get the Tamron.
Tamron v Sigma - I own a Sigma lens and the Tamron beats it easily in the build quality stakes, however it is one of the cheaper ones so direct comparison is probably not fair, but to make a sweeping statement that Tamron are waste of money is wrong.
As clippo say, lets see some evidance to support your arguments, words are easy.
:)
onefivenine
24-06-08, 18:08
I am also looking at the Cannon lens although i must admit i have been for a while, is there anyone who can post some macro shots using this leans and as Clippo says i would love to see some stunning images with the Cannon lens just to push me over the edge to buying one.
:thanks:
I rented the Canon 100mm from Calumet for a weekend last month (cost about £23), and I'm defo going to buy one.
The build feels good and solid, and the (appx) 6 inch working distance at 1:1 is going to be ideal for tank shots when I get my Perc 90 up and running.
The best feature in my mind is that you can focus on a subject at 1:1, then move back slightly and use autofocus. OK you sacrifice a little magnification but this will be ideal for shooting fish in a tank, or hovering/flying insects etc.
Only got to take a few snaps unfortunately as the weather was poo... but here's a few taken at 1:1 - nothing stunning I'm afraid! But you can see it's sharp and the colour rendition is stunning. The bokeh isn't bad either.
These are all shot at f/11, so there is room to push more depth of field out of it but I prefer to maintain sharpness. You will introduce softening due to diffraction above f/11 at this magnification.
Untouched apart from a little high-pass filter sharpening as I shot in RAW.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2185/2539946964_b259b1bd06.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2539946964/)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/2538585578_cf86284feb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2538585578/in/photostream/)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2536113635_47086646e5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2536113635/in/photostream/)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2536108239_45aeddbed7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2536108239/in/photostream/)
Stevie Lee
24-06-08, 23:10
BigD, I`ve just looked at your sig thats not far off ten grands worths of camera kit.:eek: Are you just in it for a hobby or is this a full time job?
I must say I tried both the Tamron and the Canon 100m in jessops and on a 400d couldn`t tell the differance add my lowly camera skills into that and the extra cash just didn`t seem worth it, so bought the tamron from hong kong. With the 21 megapixels you have on the 1d I imagine you might be seeing a bit of a differance in the lens
Stevie
I rented the Canon 100mm from Calumet for a weekend last month (cost about £23), and I'm defo going to buy one.
The build feels good and solid, and the (appx) 6 inch working distance at 1:1 is going to be ideal for tank shots when I get my Perc 90 up and running.
The best feature in my mind is that you can focus on a subject at 1:1, then move back slightly and use autofocus. OK you sacrifice a little magnification but this will be ideal for shooting fish in a tank, or hovering/flying insects etc.
Only got to take a few snaps unfortunately as the weather was poo... but here's a few taken at 1:1 - nothing stunning I'm afraid! But you can see it's sharp and the colour rendition is stunning. The bokeh isn't bad either.
These are all shot at f/11, so there is room to push more depth of field out of it but I prefer to maintain sharpness. You will introduce softening due to diffraction above f/11 at this magnification.
Untouched apart from a little high-pass filter sharpening as I shot in RAW.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2185/2539946964_b259b1bd06.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2539946964/)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/2538585578_cf86284feb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2538585578/in/photostream/)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2536113635_47086646e5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2536113635/in/photostream/)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2536108239_45aeddbed7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2536108239/in/photostream/)
:thanks:
onefivenine
25-06-08, 00:06
No one has mentioned lighting thus far but I guess that's because the intention for most people here is to shoot brightly lit marine tanks.
I expect BigD is also using a Canon macro flash, MT-24EX twin flash and/or MR-14EX ring flash which can both attach to the 100mm and MP-E.
In macro the lighting makes all the difference. I shoot all my macro handheld using a MT-24EX, even the 5x stuff, usually at 1/250s unless I'm exposing for the background.
Here's some detail from a 1p coin shot handheld at 5x magnification using an MP-E 65mm and MT-24EX twin flash.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2074/2351568575_4f4610bc2f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2351568575/in/set-72157604185616050/)
ISO100, f/11, 1/100s, 65mm
I think the point I'm trying to make here is that the Canon lens buys you into the Canon system, and has all this great lighting available to go with it... it's one thing shooting brightly lit tanks but when you go outside and try to capture wildlife/insects etc you might struggle without decent lighting.
And once you get a macro lens, beleive me, you will want to go outside shooting bugs! It's addictive!
I'm not knocking the other lenses by the way just pointing out some Canon system benefits. There are plenty other ways to light your macro using regular flashguns creatively. And no need to go overboard on an MP-E - trust me - the insides of your tanks is gonna be too far away for its 4in fixed (working) focus distance at 1:1.
If I was buying a macro lens I'd get the 100mm, and I'fd have a look at the ring flash and twin flash too for 'non-tank macro'. It really is amazing kit.
Unfortunately with the MT-24EX you do tend to look like someone from Ghostbusters...:eek:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2378/2350161612_c86bd0108c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/onefivenine/2350161612/in/set-72157604185616050/)
Reef bloke
25-06-08, 10:36
Looks more like johnny five that onefivenine lol
http://www.insomniacmania.com/news/news_942_1.jpg
wookie7062
27-06-08, 21:52
The image quality is by all accounts give or take equal. If youve got the cash the Canon is definately the one to go for. The autofocus is quieter and the focus internal. I had the Sigma 150mm as well the Canon 100mm until recently and it was a cracking bit of kit. The ring flash and MT-24 fit on any lens with the right filter thread size. not just Canons.
At the moment I'm actually waiting for all my equipment to show up hence I can't show you what some examples. However when it does show up don't worry I'll be on it, and its basically a case of having just moved to Sydney the photo opportunities for Macro in particular are endless however I was stupid and packed all the lenses bar my standard day-to-day lenses away for the shipment. Theres a couple of absolutely beautiful Golden Orb Spiders in the front yard I'm dying to take some pictures of when the equipment gets here. And they're BIG spiders, some 12cm long all up and slightly intimidating the first time you see them but should make some great shots!
And the photos I've taken aren't what I'd call great but I'm still getting used to the new camera having upgraded from a 5D which was great but I wanted a more solid body and the 1DSIII is that alright.
And YES it is a hobby, I'd love to take it fulltime but photography from my experience doesn't pay unless you hit the jackpot. Think about it for a moment, if you're a wedding photographer then you need at least 2 camera bodies and if you're using 1DSIII then you're at some 12,000 pounds, plus of course the associated lenses, so you don't get much change out of some 20,000 pounds. Plus of course my main area of interest is Macro and Wild Life photography which takes time and a lot of patience. I need money coming in hence time is something I don't have a huge amount of, what with having a wife and 2 kids and for those people I know that do wild life they aim for 1 shot in every thousand being what they're happy publishing. May sound extreme but as your skills improve you have to resist the urge to delete your earlier shots, just ask my wife!
I have done a few weddings and I'm reasonable at it but its not a area of photography I'd ever wish to take full time. Its stressful and in my opinion boring! Its always the same time of stuff and doesn't really push me but I did enjoy doing my brother-in-laws wedding. Was enjoyable and a great way to meet some of the new relatives.
But I'll post some up here when my equipment shows. Don't worry bout that :-)
BigD
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.