pablo_s

I'm looking for a compact camera which has good macro capabilities (compared

to the competition, I know there's no way to match an SLR with dedicated macro

lens).

 

I've been looking into the Ricoh Caplio 4. This camera is not marketed in the

US, though Adorama sells it. Can focus really close throughout the zoom range

(1cm @ 28mm, 10cm @ 200mm), allows manual selection of focus point in macro

mode, and macro is claimed to be the strong point of Ricoh. On the downside,

this camera doesn't allow manual control of aperture, which is a big minus.

 

Any alternatives?

 

Thanks in advance!

Thank you all for the great replies/advice!

The 28/2.8 is a nice little lens. I just got one but I'm selling it because I got the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and can't justify keeping both, even though the 28/2.8 is so light and small it's a pleasure to use. I found the 24-85 to be quite good in the 24-50 range, even wide open, so do you really need a prime? If you're looking for a lens faster than the zoom, then the 35/2 probably makes more sense; the 28/2.8 is just 1/2 stop faster than the 24-85 at 28mm.

I'm not sure how it happened. Probably when trying to brush away

some dust. But the back element of my Tamron 28-75/2.8 now has a

very small scratch, close to the border of the element, not in the

center.

 

At first I panicked because I had read that the back element is more

sensible to marks than the front element. However, I did several

careful test and I'm not able to observe any problems. I did a full

side by side comparison with the Canon 24-85/3.5-4.5 and as expected

the Tamron came slightly in front.

 

What are the theoretical consequences of a scratch in the different

elements of the lens? Could it be that it's having a subtle impact

that I wasn't able to notice?

 

Thanks in advance!

It's not only the magnification. Dedicated macro lenses are designed to deal with the peculiarities of macro focusing, meaning they have flatter field, less distortion at macro distances, etc.

Christian, I've owned both the Tamron and the 28-135 IS. Both are very good lenses and good deals for the price. If you're happy with the results you're getting from the 28-135, then I see no need to consider the Tamron. Now, if you find that the 28-135 is not sharp enough, or you need larger apertures (to freeze movement or get a shallow DoF), then the Tamron makes a lot of sense.

 

I don't think you can draw any conclusions from 800x600 pictures you see on a monitor. At that resolution, and with a little help from photoshop, even a picture taken with the cheapest consumer zoom can look great.

 

So in short, my advice is: are you happy with the 28-135 lens? if you are, then that's pretty much it. The perfect lens does not exist and it's all about compromise; once you find a lens you like, keep it.

Hi Paul. It all depends on how much of an issue $$$ is for you. The 85/1.8 is an awesome portrait lens, but it doesn't have any macro features. Though I don't have one, the consensus seems to be that the 100/2.8 macro is very good for portraits, so if you don't mind the slower aperture it may be the best compromise. If you can stretch the money a little bit, get the 100/2.8 and the 50/1.8 for low light use.

 

Many zoom lenses are designated macro, but it's just a marcketing gimmick. It just means closer focus. They're not corrected for flat field, etc and the magnification is not large enough to be considered real macro (which starts at 1:2).

 

When shooting at macro distances the DoF is extremely shallow, so it's not surprising at all that you got a fuzzy bee. You need to stop down the lens considerably to get some workable DoF, but then of course shutter speeds will be slow. So I wouldn't blame the Tamron really.

 

Good luck with your choice.

Sean, wow, that extreme pixel peeping is interesting.

 

First of all, if one has to magnify to 1200% to find a problem with a lens, then that has to mean the lens is actually pretty good! :)

 

As for the reason for these soft little areas, I'm not really sure. Superficially, the glass elements seem quite clean. Some exterior dust particles are always floating on the external part of the front element, but AFAIK they shouldn't appear in the picture (and by the way my Canon 50/1.8 does have a few specs on the front lens). I checked and I also had a couple of dust particles on the back element. I will clean it and repeat the shot to see if I notice any difference...

Thanks for the replies! The shots were taken with a Canon 10D, highest quality jpg, ISO 100. No postprocessing at all (except cropping and saving as a 80% quality jpg). The focus was at about two feet, so I guess that explains the difference in focal length.

 

And Sean you're right, the difference is unlikely to be visible in real-life shots. I'm actually quite impressed by the performance of the Tamron given the price.

Now the Tamron. Notice that even though the shot was taken at 50mm (confirmed by EXIF data), the actual forcal length seems to be less, since the crop is smaller and the area represented is the same. Do you know what may be going on?

 

Thanks in advance!<div></div>

After reading the great reviews (including Bob Atkins') I decided to

replace my EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 lens by the Tamron 28-75/2.8. I bought

it used locally. Since some people say they got a soft version of

this lens, I did a few tests to check whether that was the case with

mine.

 

It seems to be a little bit softer than the 50/1.8 at 50mm... on one

hand this is not too surprising; in fact, it's surprising that it

comes so close to one of Canon sharp primes. But Bob says the Tamron

is at least as good as the Canon if stopped down, and that doesn't

seem to be the case with mine. I'm attaching 100% crops of the

center, shot at f/5.6. First the Canon.<div></div>

I've used both Canon and Nikon digicams, and I found the Canon to be an overall better product. However, for your case I would recommend the Nikon with the 24-85 lens (is it the 8400?). Using a wide angle adaptor is cumbersome and it affects picture quality.

 

Digicams can't compete with SLRs (digital or not) when it comes to night photography... check whether the 8400 has an AF assist lamp or something like that. Since DoF is huge anyway you can always prefocus, choose a small aperture and hope for the best. But the noise levels will be high in long exposures (over 1 sec).

What about a 200/2.8 L + 1.4 TC? or even a 70-200/4 L + 1.4 TC? 500mm is an extremely long focal distance with the 1.6 crop, and may be more than you need. Another option is a used Canon 100-400.

 

Please note I haven't used any of these lenses. These are just some more options to make your decision even harder :)

Another thing is that 480 is a very high ISO for compact digicams. You'll notice that all of them have substantial noise from ISO 200, and even those with an ISO 800 mode aren't really usable at ISO 800.

Joe, with compact digicams you have huge amounts of DoF at all apertures and focal lengths (except may be the shallowest aperture at the longest focal length), and at all distances except macro. However, most digicams do go to f/8. What is the largest aperture of yhe Olympus 410? An important concern is that with a very limited range of apertures your control of shutter speed and exposure is severely limited.

Having those gaps by itself is no problem at all. However, if you mostly use focal lengths in the range 28-70, not having a zoom covering those lengths may be a bit of inconvenience. In other words, you may be lacking a "walk-around" lens. Other than that, your setup looks really great for a moderate price.

Pavel, here's my suggestion: get a D30 with the Sigma 18-125 and the Canon 50/1.8. I've just seen a D30 go for $385 shipped. The Sigma is around $250 and the Canon is around $70. All prices are US $.

 

Both lenses are great for the money. No ultrazoom actually has great optics, but this seems to be very decent stopped down, and I think it would be a great first lens. Later, when you know which focal lengths you prefer, you can get something more specific. For low-light, portraits, and creative work you have the excellent 50/1.8 which is a true bargain.

 

If you're too worried about getting only 3MP, then a used Digital Rebel may be for you. But don't underestimate the D30. For small to medium size prints it's an excellent performer.

 

A DSLR will always be better than a P&S when it comes to night photography (bigger sensors = less noise). However, as it's been pointed out, night photography is anything but trivial, so just as important as a good camera is good technique and accesories (tripod, etc).

 

Some people here would have you believe that any lens which is not L nor prime is useless. For pros this may be true, but for someone starting out I think a consumer zoom makes a lot of sense (and the Sigma seems better than the average consumer zoom).

 

Good luck with your choice.

Oops. It's 20D not 30D in mypost above.

Ronald, an easy question to answer! Any DSLR less than 3 years old is good at ISO(ASA) 400 and not bad at all at 800. Some, like the 30D, are good at ISO 800 and not bad at all at 1600, or so I'm said.

 

No compact digicam can perform well at ISO 400, let alone 800. In fact, a Digital SLR at 400 will outperform many digicams at ISO 100. The difference is that huge.

 

Bob Atkins has some article explaining the reasons (small vs big sensor), but those are the facts. You can't go wrong with a DSLR (unless very old, like the D30 which is not so good at ISO 800), and you will go wrong with a compact.

 

De rien, a bientot, Pablo.

Bill and Kevin, you are both making bold and completely off-the-mark generalizations. Compact all in one digicams are good for some people and uses, and digital SLRs are good for other people and/or uses. It doesn't make any sense to say that one is useless or that there is not one good reason to buy one over the other.

 

Michael, if you do buy a DRebel, I suggest you keep your film body as a backup and for wide angle shots. As someone else said, it's not worth much in the used market anyway.

 

Regards, Pablo.

I haven't tried the USM version of the 75-300, but I've read many times that it's micro USM, not "real" USM and so the difference is barely noticeable. The 100-300 has "true" USM, but it's more expensive as a result.

Well, that Tamron is out of reach at the moment. The problem I see with close-up lenses is that the working range is so small that if I'm putting them on a prime (and I will, becase my better lenses are primes), I have very little compositional flexibility. What are the maximum and minimum focusing distances with a 250D attached to, say, the 50/1.8?

If you already have lenses, the 10D may be the best price/quality ratio in the market today. So many people are upgrading to the 20D that the price has dropped considerably and continues to drop; I got mine here for $700 and seems to be going on eBay in the $700-$800 range (but look at photo.net classifieds first as I normally find them a more pleasant buying experience).

 

The alternative would be to buy the Drebel and 2 lenses, just for the rebate, then sell the lenses. This is time consuming, you need the money upfront, and you have to trust you'll get the rebates. But in the end you could have a new DRebel for $450.

 

For me the 20D was never an option, but I had to decide between the DRebel and the 10D and went for the 10D. By the way, I've had a DRebel before and it was great... for the uses you mention you probably won't feel the need for the advanced features of the 20D, and certainly the features are not worth $1000 (to you, they do to a pro or someone needing those speficic features, like an action photographer who needs a large buffer). So if the rebate way is not too cumbersome for you, you may end up saving quite a few bucks.

Thanks for the answers, this forum is awesome!

 

I keep hearing that the Tamron is very good and cheaper than the Canon. However, at least in the US they seem to be around the same price (the Tamron is $480 at BH, there's a rebate, but same goes for the Canon). Am I missing something? Is the Tamron actually better than the Canon? And how does it compare to the Canon 85/1.8? (they are too close in focal length and they are both relatively expensive for me, so I couldn't justify having both).

I try to stick with Canon glass, but I'm open to consider good deals

from third party manufacturers. I've never considered Vivitar since

their zooms seem to be the utmost crap, but I've read elsewhere that

the 100/3.5 is actually a decent lens. I would use it mainly as a

learning tool for macro work; I don't expect miracles from it, but

yes some decent pictures that allow me to evaluate my progress. The

alternative would be a good close-up lens (like 250D) for my

85/1.8, but that would give me less magnification, and I like the

convenience of a dedicated macro lens. Any opinions will be welcome,

thanks!

 

PS. I know I have to save for the EF 100/2.8 macro. I will, but as I

said I want to learn and see how interested I get in macro

photography first.