Trying hard to get a better understanding of lenses.

[climbingstitch]

Sean Shelton

 

I am interested in 2 things.

 

Macro shots?

 

Nature shots?

 

I am flexible on what I can spend but I want to know what lenses I should buy

for $2000 or less and then what lenses I could buy for $4000 or less that would

better my photography in this area?

 

I know that an achromatic close up lenses could help me but should I go that way

or should I find a better method for shooting things up close?

 

For telephoto I am not sure should I get one that is flexible like a 100-400mm

or should I get a fixed lense, like a canon 400mm? I am trying to keep my

payload light because I will be traveling for a year or more around the world

and I will have climbing gear and scuba gear with me so any suggestions on what

a well rounded photographer would carry on him would be I could use the help?

 

These questions are important to me and my understanding of photography. I am a

little vague, I know, because I don�t want anyone to know what I have been told

or read up to this point I want my answers to be as free as possible from

anything I know so that I can see and compare and find the best one for me.

Thanks to all that answer and give me some incite into the photo world of nature

and macro.

[SCL]

It would be halpful to know specifically what gear you currently have, and specifically what your subjects might be, as well as limitations you might have (weight, tripod with gimbal mount - or not, flash useful or not, specific eyesight problems, etc).

[mars c]

The Canon ef 100-400mm L IS USM and the Canon ef 100mm 2.8 macro is a tasty combination.

[JosvanEekelen]

I think Bob Atkins gave you a good answer in your previous thread. It depends on your time schedule but in your case I'd start with some study about phototgraphy and perhaps a good compact digital (Canon S3 or a similar model from another brand).

[mark_man]

Can I make a suggestion? Start with one lens (whether prime or zoom) and build from there. It's just a way of disciplining yourself and learning how to extract the best from a particular lens before moving on. Additionally, if you are just starting out, you may find yourself developing unexpected interests which may influence future purchases. Best not to lock yourself into a particular combination at the outset.

[climbingstitch]

Before this goes much further know that I know more about photography than some give credit. I also know that my interests are in wildlife I have been studding it since I was very little I want to get into animal behavior.

 

To answer some questions I am traveling to Africa, Thailand, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Europe. I want no more than 2 bags. I am not planning on taking to much scuba equipment just my fins and my mask. I have a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and a 28-70mm f2.8-4 both are made by sigma. I use them both regularly and I would like to upgrade so that I can get better results. Given this new info how you can help me? Also just so you know I am reading 3 books on photography at the moment and reading a lot online with the use of this website and everything points towards having a good zoom with a high speed lenses. I was asking because I was curious to know what some of you use and maybe what you would like to use if you had the choice.

[climbingstitch]

If you tell me to read something please give me suggestions on what to read. Thank you.

[ed_okie]

magical answers nor lenses define the accomplished photographer. Reading is wonderful, highly recommended... but get out the door and shoot! Nothing teaches like doing.

Equally critical when traveling: never, ever use/bring a piece of NEW equipment. I'd suggest 2-months use before any piece is included in your travel gear.

Lastly, and equally important: Travel light. Bring less. The "pile of stuff" becomes far more handicap - than help.

[tommyinca]

My 2 cents, here are some possible up-grade path to what you already has

 

28-70, ---> EF24-70/2.8, Tamron's 28-75 is lighter

 

70-300 ---> EF100-400IS, EF70-300DO (smallest for backpacking but not as good as 100-400)

 

Macro EF50/f2.5 EF100/f2.8, EF180/f3.5 Pick as needed or (all).

 

You might also want to pick up a wide angle.

[athinkle]

I've got 2 suggestions as far as reading goes: First off, Understanding Exposure is a good general text on the subject. As far as macro goes The Complete Guide to Close-up and Macro Photography is a great instructional guide. However, that one can be a bit too heavy if you're not already really familiar with your gear and the required general concepts.

[oceanphysics]

Unless you plan to hire a Sherpa, I think you're <i>enormously</i> overestimating how much gear you're going to want to carry with you. Forget shooting wildlife if you're traveling around the world, unless you're able to rent a lens someplace. The opportunities will likely be few and far between, and a 400 f/5.6 is pretty marginal for wildlife anyway.

 

If it were me, I'd take a short (~100 mm) telephoto (could be a macro), a 50 mm f/1.4 and a wide angle prime of some kind -- probably a 24 or 28. Or I'd just go with a 24-70 zoom, and nothing else.

 

Actually these days I might take a compact digicam, and nothing else.

[mark_chappell]

The answer to your questions boil down to: what do you mean by "nature" and what do

you mean by "macro".

 

If your main interest in "nature" is bird photography, then you're kind of out of luck: you

could get a 400/4

+ 1.4X or a 400/5.6, but either is much too short for most wild birds. The vast majority

people who are seriously/fanatically into bird photography end up with 500/4 or 600/4

lenses, plus big tripods, gimbal heads, 2X converters, 1D type cameras, .... all that adds

up fast, and even a 500/4 is way beyond

your budget of $4K. Plus, it and the associated tripod weigh maybe 12-15 pounds -- not

easy to travel with. But I can

attest that the Canon 500/4 is stunningly good.

 

If birds are not your main goal in nature photography, then shorter lenses often work

pretty well for other kinds of wildlife. For ease of travel and best results I'd recommend

the 300/4 IS +

1.4X. For more versatility, the 100-400 is

hard to beat, but probably at the cost of somewhat lower image quality. Both are

stabilized which reduces the need to use a tripod.

 

For normal macro work I'd go with either a 100 mm or 180mm macro lens. Essentially all

of these are of excellent optical quality so don't feel constrained to stick with Canon. If

by "macro" you mean REALLY tiny subjects (a few mm long), then it's a whole new and

more difficult set of challenges. The best answer is the MP-E 65 lens plus a macroflash,

but that is not suitable for most photography and isn't something you want to

contemplate unless you're very familiar with macro techniques.

[jim_d5]

The Canon ef 100-400mm L IS USM and the Canon ef 100mm 2.8 macro is a NASTY combination.

 

This is one bad lens combination for this type of shooting.

 

<"Bad" and "nasty" meaning good of course>

[jim_d5]

"But I can attest that the Canon 500/4 is stunningly good."

 

Agreed. The overall best in the Canon lineup?

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Sean,

 

You wrote "If you tell me to read something please give me suggestions on what to read. Thank you."

 

Did you not read the answers within your previous post?

 

Bob Atkins provided you this suggestion in your previous post.

 

" *** I'd seriously suggest reading one (or preferably all) of These Books . You'll learn more than spending a month asking for advice and reading websites. ***"

 

You need to "Slow Down" and read what you're being provided here.

 

//Chuck

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Sean,

 

The Copy/Paste of Bob Atkins suggestions of reading material didn't work for me in my previous answer.

 

I'm providing it again.

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/books/john_shaw_books.html

 

Sorry... but above is what Bob suggested you read.

 

Take this to heart.

 

//Chuck

[climbingstitch]

I did get Bob's comments but I had already posted that comment. Strangely enough I already ran across those books and do planned on reading them. Spent a lot of time on Bob's page as well. No worries mates I am doing it all. I am reading and practicing a lot. I take my camera out and play when I can which actualy has been everyday for the most part. I do appreciate the advice. Keep it comming.

[yakim_peled1]

100/2.8 USM and 100-400 IS will be a very good start. Shoot with them for a while and see how you like and dislike. A tripod or at least a monopod are also advisable. However, take note that as the 100-400 has old generation IS you need to turn it off when mounted on tripod.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BiQt

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.