Adding a lens for Nature photgraphy

[geoff_choi]

I'm a newbie/rookie to photography in general, and picked up a system

for sports photography, and now looking at doing Outdoor/Nature

photgraphy.

 

I went totally overboard with my first system, and currently have an

EOS3 body with 28-135USM IS lens and 100-400USM L IS Lens. I'm amazed

with the pictures I get from this system! Never knew photography can

be so much fun.

 

So far, the 100-400 lens works fine, but seems I can't get as close as

I want with the 28-135 lens for extrememly close shots, for example,

flowers/small objects on the ground. What would be the recommended

lens for Macro/close-up shots? The amound of lens choices are seems to

be great, and can't decide which one is quite right. Since my current

setup covers almost everything I shoot, so I could use a dedicated

lens for macro photography. Any recommendation would be greatly

appriciated! Thanks.

[brian_kennedy]

Try a search on "Canon macro," and you'll pull up a lot of threads on the lenses. In short, the Canon 50mm macro is good but only goes to 1:2, the 100/2.8 macros (old and new USM) are outstanding, and if you want to continue to go overboard, the 180L macro is both outstanding and expensive. I don't know about third party lenses. I'd recommend the new 100/2.8 USM macro by Canon.

[dr._steven_bein]

I am a Nikon shooter, so some might not directly apply, but I had a lightweight set up (had, as in stolen last Thursday night ), and it was for travelling. I used a light AF body (N80), 24-50, 70-300 and for macro, I put a 35mm extension tube on for about 1 to 1, for more I used a dipoter filter. I could get up to 2 to 1, sharp as a tack, and, when I took a photo of a resting baby sidewinger, I used the macro with the lens as far out as possible. It works very well. That is just another approach. For my, though I have a 105 macro, it is too heavy for a lightweight travel set up. Since weight is relative, your choice is yours, but I think, if an extensiohn tube and diopter would work with the 100-400 IS, you would be blown away with the results.

[chrisober]

The 180L will give you the ability to use the Canon teleconverters if you decide to pick them up later on.

[kferris575]

Geoff,

 

Extension tubes can be a quick & inexpensive way to get some close up shots. My website "ozarkimages.com" has a summary about extension tubes in the Hints & Tips section that might be helpful. However, you may ultimately need a Macro lens to do what you want. The Canon 180mm is great, but it's large and heavy. If you are carrying a lot of gear, a 100mm macro may be a better choice.

 

Kevin Ferris

[kurt_heintzelman]

The older EOS 100/2.8 (non-USM) macro is a stellar lens (I've been using this lens for the past four years); with the introduction of the newer USM version, good deals can likely be had on the older one if you're on a tight budget. I have plans to upgrade to the EOS 180/3.5L macro in the future, because: 1) it comes with a tripod mounting ring/footplate, which makes switching from horizontal to vertical compositions a snap, and does not require the headache of having to reposition the tripod and head when making these changes with lenses that require tripod mounting via the camera's mounting plate; 2) it allows for greater working distance for shy subjects such as insects and amphibians; 3) it comes with a lens hood; 4) it accepts teleconvertors. (The newer EOS 100mm macro can be used with an optional tripod mounting ring).

 

Nonetheless, 100mm is still a great macro focal length (and also serves as an excellent general purpose 100mm lens), and I would recommend the 100mm macro over the 50mm macro.

[kim_kaiser]

i watched A. Morris put a 500D closeup lens on his 100-400IS at a field shoot. i dont know the math or ratios, but the stink bug we were photographing sure filled up the screen,,

[michael_hancock]

Kim's advise is not bad. Before spending big money on a macro lens, you can get a set of extension tubes and/or a high quality diopter for the 100-400 IS. The diopter might work better, since you lose no light. A Nikon diopter is about $45, and will work on any brand lens. The Canon diopters are a bit more. A set of Kenko extension tubes are about $100, and can be used on any lens.

 

The Canon 180 is a great lens, but expensive. My macro set-up consists of extension tubes with a Canon 100-300 zoom, or my Canon 100mm macro (old version). Neither is ideal for me. The 100-300 is nice since it allows for zooming to frame the image rather than moving the tripod, but since there is no tripod collar on the lens, its unstable (Why doesn't Canon make the equivelent of Nikon's PN-11, with tripod collar???). The 100mm macro is very sharp, but the working distance for macro is too close, and the background aren't blown out enough for my tastes without great effort.

 

Your 100-400 might be much better, since it has the tripod collar, provides greater working distance, has zoom and IS, and you already own it. I am considering buying a 300mm IS for macro use since it will be great for macro and for general telephoto uses.

 

Good luck!

[mark_lagrange2]

Geoff,I agree with the later comments regarding trying diopters and/or extension tubes first since they are much less expensive alternatives. I am not quite up on the +++'s and ---'s of extension tubes vs. diopter vs. macro lens....but the financials dictate at least looking into the first two choices.

 

While I do own the same equipment as you, I have also purchased a 90mm Tamron macro...and you know what...I never use it. Instead I love to use the 28-135 or 100-400IS with extension.

 

You also mentioned that you are into sports mostly and now have gotten into nature. If you want a "real prime" lens. I have a 400/2.8 IS that is imaculate (just under a year old) that I'm sure I will have to take a hit on since it is now "used". I bought the monster 600 f/4. I'm outa control!!! Let me know if you or anyone else is interested.

 

...and let us all know what you decide (and why) on your macro.

[karl_lehmann]

You really can't go wrong with the extension tubes, as several posters have already recommended. They weigh next to nothing, they're not too expensive and they'll work with any lens that fits your camera. You can get some spectacular results with the 10mm tube at the wide end of your 28-135, and you can stack them for a stronger effect at 400mm. I have also tried the 500D on the 100-400; it works but I wouldn't really recommend it, it's an unwieldy combo. The 77mm 500D is very heavy, and you'd also need a step-up ring to use it on the 28-135. If you really get into macro photography you can always add a macro lens in the future but I think you'll be very pleased with what you can do with the tubes.

[chuck_greene]

Geoff,

 

A diopter (close up lens) is a relatively inexpensive way for you to try macro photography and much easier to use on a zoom for macro work than extension tubes, because with a diopter you can zoom to change magnification, with tubes as soon as you change the focal length you have to physically move the lens closer or farther away.

 

A Canon 500D close up lens will give you from 0.2 to 0.8 times magnification on your 100-400, with the lens focused at infinity. I wouldn't be surprised if you get almost life size magnification with the 100-400 at it's closest focus. As a previous poster mentioned a 77mm 500D is not light, but it's a lot lighter and smaller than carrying around a macro lens, and at $135 brand new it's a lot cheaper.

 

A 105/2.8 macro lens is loads of fun too, and doubles as a fine portrait lens.

[geoff_choi]

To all, thanks for the suggestions!

 

I'll be stopping by my local camera shop and check out some of the options recommended. Right now, I'm leaning towards the 100mm Macro lens. The 180/3.5fL lens sounds appealing, but can't justify spending $1200+ on single lens that I won't be using all the time. Extenders might make most sense, so I'll have to check them out too.

 

Again, thanks for all the help!

[robert_p._boner]

In the past 30 years I have owned 2 50mm macro lenses, 2 100 mm macros (actually 90 & 105) a 200mm macro and a 180 macro. The 200 and 180 are by far the most enjoyable to use. I currently have only the 180L and am very pleased with it. I highly recommend it.

[dr._steven_bein]

When looking at the options, consider what the weight is and where you will be carrying it. That is why I went to the extension tubes and diopters as a combo with my lightweight system. Also, consider the working distance. Many people love the longer lenses due to working distance. Like I enjoyed when using macro on a sidewinder in the California desert. Working distance helps. Also, with the longer lenses, it is easier to use flash.

[bob_royse]

As others have pointed out, a lot can be accomplished with just adding some extension tubes to your 100-400. For high magnification close up work, the 100/2.8 macro is a logical choice. It's also a great portrait lens. At one time I was carrying a 300/f4, the 180 macro and 85/1.8. I sold all those since it wasn't a practical way to travel, it was inconvenient, and it was generally too much to carry in a small backpack when hiking. I'm much happier now to have consolidated with the 100-400 and 100 macro. Yes, the 180 is really the ideal macro lens in the Canon system, but it is too big and expensive a lens to haul around for only macro work. When using the 100 macro you can obtain additional working distance at high magnifications by adding a Canon 1.4x (or 2x)+ the short 12mm tube. For subjects like wildflowers, where you'll most likely not be at a higher magnification than 1/3 life size, adding tubes to the 100-400 (around 200mm) works perfectly well.

 

Aside from a macro lens, you might like to add a lens wider than 28mm, such as the 20mm lens. 28mm barely gets you into interesting wide angle photography. Having something wider allows for more dramatic and creative near/far compositions. Other than that, nothing beats the Canon 600/f4 IS............

[joseph_albert]

Generally 2-element closeup lenses attached to the front of a lens are preferable to extension tubes for a zoom lens. This is because a zoom lens becomes a varifocal lens when extension tubes are used. Varifocal means that you have to re-focus after adjusting focal length.

<p>

On the other hand, a zoom with closeup lens on the front becomes a very convenient tool for closeup photography. You can adjust the magnification/composition without re-focusing or moving the camera/tripod by adjusting the focal length on the lens. That is, the zoom retains its true zoom focusing with a closeup lens rather than becoming a varifocal lens. This enables making small adjustments to the composition without adjusting the camera position or re-focusing, a great convenience.

<p>

For a fixed focal length lens, both extension tubes and closeup lenses can be used. It is not clear which is preferred. My experience in comparing both techniques is biased toward usage of extension tubes, but my take is that with extension tubes the downside is light loss to bellows factor, whereas with closeup lenses the downside is increased susceptibility of the lens to flare with the extra group of 2 elements. In terms of sharpness, I could not see a reason to prefer one to the other when stopped down some, but on the particular lenses I've used, extension tubes gave better wide-open performance than the particular 2-element closeup lens I've used (Nikon 6T).

<p>

An advantage of extenstion tubes is any particular tube will work on any lens of the given mount, regardless of filter thread size.

[karl_lehmann]

Actually, a push-pull zoom like the 100-400 becomes a varifocal with the addition of a close up lens to the front too. This is because the distance between the front element and the subject changes when you zoom. So this is not a factor when choosing between tubes and diopters for this type of lens, you'll have to refocus after zooming with either one of them.<p>Karl Lehmann <a href=www.lostworldarts.com">Lost World Arts</a>