macro VS Telephoto

Hello all, thanks in advance for your responses.

 

I'm trying to decide what to make my next lens purchase. I am debating between

a 100mm macro lens or something of longer focal length such as a 100-300mm

zoom/telephoto.

My current longest focal range is 90mm, which coupled with a 30D makes it 144mm.

I enjoy macro photography, but feel that I could do a lot with a telephoto as

well, especially I have a rather limited focal range right now.

 

Any opinions?

Also, any opinions on buying strictly canon vs. say a Tamron or Sigma lens?

 

(Current lenses: EF-S 18-55mm f/4.0-5.6 (rebel xt kit lens); EF-S 17-85mm USM

F/4.0-5.6; EF 28-90mm F/4.0-5.6 (rebel T2 kit lens); EF 50mm F/1.8)

 

Thanks!

R.

Hi Ray, It would be helpful if you told us what you plan to shoot. For example the 100mm macro is an excellent macro and even a great portrait prime lens, whereas a 100-300mm is probably considered more of a wildlife/zoom lens that would not be most people's first choice for doing up-close, macro work or for most portraits even. In other words, they're sort of apples and oranges, so it would help to know what you'd like to shoot.

 

Looking at what you've already got, you have some redundancy going on. For example the first two lenses you own are pretty close in focal length and have you covered from wide to mid-range. Even the 28-90 isn't far from the first two, so you could probably sell at least one of those 3 lenses without missing out much.

 

You have a 50mm prime but don't have anything that reaches all that far yet. So unless you're a huge fan of macro photography, you might want to look into one of the longer zooms. Good luck!

I don't really have anything in particular in mind for shooting. A majority of my photos are landscape, architecture, macro, or that sort of thing. I take occasional portraits and would possibly like to shoot more and get a little better at it.

I was just thinking that it might be good to try to round out the range a little more since I do, as you pointed out, have a lot of redundancy in the shorter focal range.

<I>I take occasional portraits and would possibly like to shoot more and get a little better at it</i><P>

 

Well, while the 100mm macro lens *does* make a fine portrait lens, it's going to have the field-of-view on your 30D of a 160mm lens on a film or FF camera, which, unless you have gobs of room, might be a wee bit long. On the other side of the coin is that it's obviously a macro lens which would let you also get very close to any subject and it's a heckuva sharp lens - one of Canon's "jewels", in fact. <P>

 

BTW, sometimes super-sharp can actually work against you a bit in portraits unless you have subjects with perfect skin and/or like to do a lot of work in Photoshop, touching things up later. All in all, I'll take a sharp lens over a not-so-sharp one any day though.<P>

 

All that said, and there will be a zillion different opinions on this, but if I were you I'd probably look at a longer zoom.<P>

 

I'm not sure what your budget is but perhaps you might check out the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, which I believe is still just a few hundred bucks and has Image Stabilization which I'm a big fan of since I don't usually enjoy lugging tripods around. It's a good (but not great - as in "L" quality, big $$ great) lens, but quite capable - especially for the money.<P>

 

Now many people may say it's not very fast (meaning it doesn't open up to a very wide aperture) and they're right but if you plan on doing portraits indoors and eventually buying some strobes (flash) then that's no big deal because you usually shoot around f/8 anyway.<P>

 

And if you want to shoot with a wider aperture lens, that 50mm f/1.8 you've got will certainly work well in a studio with a 30D<P>

 

Regarding Sigma and Tamron - some of them are very good lenses. Some aren't. Older Sigma lenses can have compatibility problems with newer Canon bodies but if you buy a new one that's highly unlikely and it'll probably do just fine. As long as you buy from a reputable dealer like B&H or Adorama, you can always return it in a few days if you don't like it or have problems. (I'm 99 percent sure you won't have compatibility problems with a new Sigma lens) I have two Sigma lenses I'm quite happy with and they can almost always be had for much less than their Canon counterparts.<P>

 

I would however research the one(s) you might have in mind because some do better than others. Simply search here or Google to get lots of opinions and advice on a particular lens and you'll get lots and lots of opinions chiming in. Good luck!

Another lens to consider might be the Sigma 150/2.8 macro. Don't own it, but have heard nothing but rave reviews of it. Great macro for bugs and the like, other skittish critters, flowers, nice for outdoor portraits, and gives you a medium telephoto. Not sure how fast it focuses in non-macro situations, but might be good for a sports lens, if you've got any kids in Little League, etc. And rounds out your kit a little more.

 

Jim

The 70-200 f4 L is always highly recommended as a first step into the telephot world. Of for 95 per cent of the performace and half the weight and size you could look for a second hand 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM.

 

The 100/2.8 Macro is also a great lens. It really depends whether you want to work with fixed lenses or primes. The primes are good for static subjects when you have the time to zoom with you feet to get correct framing and in studios. For outdoor lanscape work I prefer zooms.

 

As to the choice between canon and sigma, I prefer canon, but depending on the lens sigma can offer much more value for the money. I would rate the sigma EX lenses as a bit below Canon Ls but on a a par and sometimes better than the top of the range Canon consumer stuff. Personally I would not bother with Sigma non-EX lenses. However, it very much depends on which lens you are talking about. All the manufacturers make some duds.

To be honest if you have decided to spend a bit more then you probably cannot do better than the Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS.

 

It does not have the build quality of the 70-200/4 (which I own and love) but it give you equal optics plus the 200-300 range and IS. You should not confuse the 70-300/4-5.6 IS with the older 75-300/4-5.6 IS. The new lens is significantly sharper (possibly due to the addition of a UD element).

 

The Canon 70-300 IS is $549.95 and the Canon 70-200/4 with rebate is $544. Since you have the 17-85 you know how valuable IS can be - it is even more useful on longer lenses.

 

I own a macro lens but for macro shots of flowers and some larger insects I prefer to use the 70-200 and extension tubes. It gets me more working distance. For higher magnification shots you really cannot go past a true macro lens.

 

You can see examples of macro work with the 70-200/4 in my macro folder. The 70-300 focuses to the same distance as the 70-200/4.

 

A 17-85 IS + 70-300 IS is a kit that gives you decent performance from 17-300mm with IS the whole way. You have the 50/1.8 for low light and portrait shots.

Ray, I think it would help if you clarified your definition of macro. The Canon EF 100mm provides true 1:1 magnification. On a full frame body, if you photograph something that is 35mm wide, it will encompass the entire width of the sensor/film. If your definition of macro matches this, you need to make sure you look for lenses that will give you a 1:1 magification, and not just ones that might have the word macro written somewhere on the lens body.

>> A 17-85 IS + 70-300 IS is a kit that gives you decent performance from 17-300mm with IS the whole way. You have the 50/1.8 for low light and portrait shots.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. If you are not a die hard macro shooter I'll recommend avoiding a true macro lens and go with extension tubes and/or a good close-up filter (Canon 500D or Nikon 6T). I had the 100/2.8 USM but sold it because I do not shoot macro that much. I now mount my 6T and/or Kenko extension tubes on my 70-200/2.8 IS when I shoot macro. Having IS in macro is also something I learned to appreciate.

 

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#closeup

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Hi Ray,

 

If you want to do true 1:1 macro, I'd say that it's hard to beat the 100mm Macro. However if you could use a telephoto lens and would like to chase insects and butterflies, a 70-200L zoom or the 200mm L coupled with an cheap extension tube or the 1,4x converter will serve both purposes very well.

I have the 200mm L and the 1,4x converter. This gives me a full frame equivalent of a 450mm f4 on my 350D, not to mention that I can't believe the colors from the 200L. The max magnification of this combo is something like 3:1 or 4:1 (don't know the exact ratio), which is fine for outdoor flowers and butterflies in my opinion.

 

Best luck, Tjalf

Maybe one of the 150 or 180 mm macro lenses would do the job for you as they are both long and macro. The 50/1.8 will suffice in the short term as a portrait lens. The 28-90 might make a good soft focus portrait lens LOL! or you can replace it with a 28-105.

Alistair, I'm interested to know how to tell the difference between the old and new 70-300mm? When did the new version come out (I recently came across a used one for $175 that is three years old)

Isn't the old one 7<b><i>5</i></b>-300mm?

Canon has a bunch of 75-300/4-5.6 lenses:

 

75-300 I

75-300 II (may be optically identical to I though Canon's camera museum lists a different number of lens elements for the non-USM version)

75-300 III (I think this is optically identical to II - III featured lead free glass)

 

All come in micromotor and USM versions.

 

Then came the 75-300/4-5.6 IS.

 

Different optical formula obviously but no special materials and similar optical behaviour.

 

There are two 70-300 lenses. The expensive 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS DO, using diffractive optics to make the lens compact, and the relatively cheap (still $500) 70-300/4-5.6 IS. This successor to the 75-300/4-5.6 IS adds a ultralow dispersion element and features better optical performance at the long end.

 

The 75-300 lenses are pretty good in the range 70-200 but not as good at 300. They are not as terrible as people make out. They do lack contrast badly at 300mm but this is easy to fix on digital. There is a significant loss in resolution though and nothing will get it back.

 

 

To get some idea of the comparison between the 75-300/4-5.6 IS and new 70-300/4-5.6 IS on a 1.6x crop factor camera look at:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_75300_456is/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm

Hi Ray,

 

well....my longest lens is also 90mm...(the Tamron SP 90mm macro) I can do macro and pretty good portrait works with this lens. esp. outdoors and its really a good lens. As good as and if not sharper than the canon 100mm macro. Similar with the Sigma 105mm macro( i used to own when i was using it with Nikon D70s and Nikon F5). In Macro department, the third party makers are not behind canon or nikons. they are equally good. But one good thing abt Tamron 90mm macro is that it can take a 2X converter which gives u a double increase in magnification without much loss in quality!

yes AF is slow and it isnt built to last 100 years but its adequate and will last long enough to let you take great images.

 

you can check my macro and portraits works in www.ujwal.com.np

 

thank you.