Should I get another lens?


Status
Not open for further replies.

AndyC

New Member
Feb 5, 2007
282
0
0
inside Bedok Res
#1
Hi guys,

Rather newb so would need some advice.:dunno:

Currently I have a 400D with Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro lens. It works great but I find that the minimum forcal lenght of 50cm is very difficult to take marco shots. Would you guys advise to get another lens? Maybe a 17-40 or -55? My budget would be about $200-$300 only. Do not need to be Canon lens.

Thanks guys!
 

deckard

New Member
Oct 13, 2006
1,241
0
0
#2
get extension tubes first, they magnify your image but you lose some light. good investment even for future uses. :)
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#4
Hi guys,

Rather newb so would need some advice.:dunno:

Currently I have a 400D with Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro lens. It works great but I find that the minimum forcal lenght of 50cm is very difficult to take marco shots. Would you guys advise to get another lens? Maybe a 17-40 or -55? My budget would be about $200-$300 only. Do not need to be Canon lens.

Thanks guys!
What is maximum magnification of your current lens? 1:1, 1:2 or else?

What do you mean by 'minimum focal length of 50cm'? Do you mean minimum focus distance from front of the lens to subject?

What is your subject for macro? Insect? Small coins?

Regards,
Arto.
 

megaweb

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
8,541
3
38
East
megaweb.clubsnap.org
#6
Currently I have a 400D with Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro lens. It works great but I find that the minimum forcal lenght of 50cm is very difficult to take marco shots. Would you guys advise to get another lens? Maybe a 17-40 or -55? My budget would be about $200-$300 only. Do not need to be Canon lens.
A cheapest 3rd party macro lens would cost around $500++. So I think accessories like ext. tube would be better choice for your budget.
 

ipin

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2005
5,387
0
0
#7
Close-up filters or reverse? :dunno:
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#8
Hi guys,

Rather newb so would need some advice.:dunno:

Currently I have a 400D with Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro lens. It works great but I find that the minimum forcal lenght of 50cm is very difficult to take marco shots. Would you guys advise to get another lens? Maybe a 17-40 or -55? My budget would be about $200-$300 only. Do not need to be Canon lens.

Thanks guys!
:bigeyes: 50cm focal length... thats bazooooka. :sweat:
 

AndyC

New Member
Feb 5, 2007
282
0
0
inside Bedok Res
#9
What is maximum magnification of your current lens? 1:1, 1:2 or else?

What do you mean by 'minimum focal length of 50cm'? Do you mean minimum focus distance from front of the lens to subject?

What is your subject for macro? Insect? Small coins?

Regards,
Arto.
Hi Arto.,

The max mag should be 1:3 and yes, the minimum focus distance is 50cm but I think it's from the focal plane mark to the left of the built-in flash and not from the front of the lens (as refered from Manual page 45)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3305&navigator=2

I like to take close ups of flowers and insects...and if I need to be 50cm away it's very difficult to take a moving insect. Another problem I see is that it's very difficult to take long exposure shots without any support (such as tripod or even a fixed object due to various reasons) as the futher away from the subject even a slight shake will translate into big movement on the other end of the lens.
 

AndyC

New Member
Feb 5, 2007
282
0
0
inside Bedok Res
#10
A cheapest 3rd party macro lens would cost around $500++. So I think accessories like ext. tube would be better choice for your budget.
WOW...I got my lens for less than $600 lor...

anyone got a link for the ext tube? I never knew such things existed till now... (sound so mountain turtle...sobz)...
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#12
Anything closer than 50cm and the AF don't work. So sad...I din foresee this problem till after I got it and started using it.
that is working distance(distance between lens front and subject) and focusing distance(distance between subject and film/sensor plane)... but focal length is the 28-300 marking on the lens, 50cm will translate to 500mm lens. ;)
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
38
A village in a forest
#13
If you are just into macro photography, I would suggest that you sell your 28-300mm and buy the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 instead. 1:1 magnification and much better image quality and sharpness. You will just lose the convenience of the 10x zoom.
 

AndyC

New Member
Feb 5, 2007
282
0
0
inside Bedok Res
#14
that is working distance(distance between lens front and subject) and focusing distance(distance between subject and film/sensor plane)... but focal length is the 28-300 marking on the lens, 50cm will translate to 500mm lens. ;)
oh...thanks for enlightening me...
 

AndyC

New Member
Feb 5, 2007
282
0
0
inside Bedok Res
#15
If you are just into macro photography, I would suggest that you sell your 28-300mm and buy the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 instead. 1:1 magnification and much better image quality and sharpness. You will just lose the convenience of the 10x zoom.
oh...no lar...cannot be buy a camera that ex just to take macro...not that rich leh...

i like filling my frames with a single object most of the time...so like to take macro shots of objects to reduce distractions in the background...(personal preferance)...

but the 28-300 is still a gd companion to bring for most occasions. just want something that can make it easier for me to take close up macros due to various reasons.
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#16
Anything closer than 50cm and the AF don't work. So sad...I din foresee this problem till after I got it and started using it.
Usually we don't use auto focus to shoot macro. Use your body to focus.

Regards,
Arto.
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#18
Hi Arto.,

The max mag should be 1:3 and yes, the minimum focus distance is 50cm but I think it's from the focal plane mark to the left of the built-in flash and not from the front of the lens (as refered from Manual page 45)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3305&navigator=2

I like to take close ups of flowers and insects...and if I need to be 50cm away it's very difficult to take a moving insect. Another problem I see is that it's very difficult to take long exposure shots without any support (such as tripod or even a fixed object due to various reasons) as the futher away from the subject even a slight shake will translate into big movement on the other end of the lens.
1:3 is enough for macro flowers (big flowers, like orchid) but not enough for insect. Insect may need around 1:1. There is a Sigma 70-300mm which have macro 1:2 capability. This lens cost you around $220 (new, gray). It is good enough for butterfly or dragon fly.

Oh, and use flash (external flash better) will help you a lot.

Regards,
Arto.
 

AndyC

New Member
Feb 5, 2007
282
0
0
inside Bedok Res
#19
1:3 is enough for macro flowers (big flowers, like orchid) but not enough for insect. Insect may need around 1:1. There is a Sigma 70-300mm which have macro 1:2 capability. This lens cost you around $220 (new, gray). It is good enough for butterfly or dragon fly.

Oh, and use flash (external flash better) will help you a lot.

Regards,
Arto.
Hi Arto,

Thanks...but please explain the difference for the mag? wat difference does it make for 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3?

Any other options other than the 70-300?
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#20
Hi Arto,

Thanks...but please explain the difference for the mag? wat difference does it make for 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3?

Any other options other than the 70-300?
Magnification 1:1 mean real life macro. This mean you are capturing scene as big as your sensor size area. Magnification 1:2 is half life macro, meaning you are capturing scene double (or 2 times) your sensor size area. Said your sensor size area is 30mm x 20mm (only for example!), the magnification 1:3 will capture the 90mm x 60mm scene.

Usually (but not always) true macro/micro lens have 1:1 real life magnification. There IS something like magnification 2:1, 3:1 for bigger magnification, but it will need additional tools (for example extension tube(s), close up filter, etc.).

Regards,
Arto.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom