Wildlife photography macro help!

[redroark]

I'm heading to Madagascar in about two months, and to that end, I have purchased a rebel XT, and have been feverishly learning as much as I can about photography. I have reached the point where it occurs to me that in addition to lemurs, Madagascar has lots of interesting bugs, lizards, frogs and flowers, and that some macro (or macro type, if true 1:1 isn't in the cards) pictures of those bugs and stuff would be really cool. I'll be doing all my pictures hand held or on a beanbag, as I am not bringing a tripod. I am also not bringing an external flash.

The two lenses I'm definitely bringing to Mada are my 17-85IS, and the 70-300 IS USM that I'll be getting once B & H gets them back in stock. I was originally (pre macro thoughts) going to pick up a nifty 50 to round out the kit, but then I started thinking that a low light macro would be more versatile - either the 60 2.8 EF-S, or one of the 100 mm 2.8 macros.

I just read some of the older threads here about diopter filters, and they sound like an awesome idea - I don't know if I'll have the time to be constantly changing lenses (or, more honestly, the stomach to frequently changes lenses in the middle of the rain forest) to go from a lemur or skink to a gecko or chameleon, but a filter change is so much safer, if not quicker.

That said, does anyone do trekking/hiking where they do both macro and telephoto photography? Just a note, this is very different from your typical African safari - as there are no large predators in Madagascar, all of my experience will be on foot, not in a jeep. That means that I'll have to carry the weight difference of a nifty fifty vs. a 100 2.8 macro both on my back, and in my wallet.

Also, how effective are those converters on the 70-300 IS. I know its rotating front element can cause problems with a circular polarizer, but how about with this type of filter?

Thanks for the help. I know this message kind of rambles, but I am jumping into the deep end of the photography pool in the sense that my first trip with the camera will be once in a lifetime, to a place where well over half of all species, plant and animal, exist only in that place. Naturally I want it all - I want my pictures to look good, without breaking the bank, my back, or my fiancee's patience standing around waiting for me to take the damn picture!

H

[ScottE]

When I hike I carry extension tubes that fit between the camera and the lens. They are just hollow tubes with electrical contacts that allow you to focus closer. I have a set of three Kenko tubes that can be used singly or in combination, depending on how close you want to get. Since there is no glass they do not degrade the image. Since they fit on the lens mount, they will fit all Canon EOS EF lenses. If you want to fit your 17-85 you would have to get an EF-S version or do some modification to an EF version.-

I am not a fan of diopter lenses. They will only fit one filter size, so they are not convenient to use with different lenses. For example, your 17-85 fits a 67 mm filter while your 70-300 uses 58 mm. If you wanted to use one diopter for both lenses, you would have to buy a 72 mm close up lens (Canon does not make 67 mm close up lens) and step up rings to adapt to your lenses. It might be more practical to just get the Canon 58 mm 500D close up lens and just use your 70-300 for macro work. The Canon and Nikon double element close up lenses are good quality optics, but some of the cheap single element filters add quite a bit of distortion.

[JNunn]

If I were packing for your awsome trip, I'd leave the 17-85 at home, take the 70-300 and pick up a 100 macro. I use my macro all the time, though not always in macro mode. It's a really sharp lens. Since Madagascar has LOTS of bugs, I wouldn't go without one. In walking through the zoo, botanical gardens, or conservatory of flowers I never use my wide angle (17-40L), as I always seem to need more reach.

In fact, if I were really packing for your trip, I'd also have to pick up a long lens (maybe sigma's 50-500 which is very reasonably priced) and leave the 70-300 at home. Otherwise, how are you going to get pix of the lemurs?

[Lester Wareham]

Get a 100mm macro. I have the EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM and its the most used lens. Not only good for life size, very sharp, but excelent as a general telephoto, resonably fast f-stop and AF speed, I think it will fill a big gap in your system. A 60mm is great but the working distance will be too short for most bugs.

You might want some sort of flash capability if in poor light. I have used the 100mm right up to life size with the 20D internal flash (with the hood off, set manual, use 200-400 ISO and +1 to +2 Stops FEC), that will save some weight.

[wombat777]

Alas, a zoom lens does a pretty poor job on macro shots. Get the 100 Canon (or 90 Tamron), or even the 150 / 180 Sigma. I find photgraphing bugs and beasties MUCH easier with the longer lenses as you get more stand-off so they don't spook. Also they make fine, if slow focussing medium teles.
The beauty of the 100 / 90 focal range is that they can easily be used for other puposes (portraits & landscapes) and their AF is slightly better than the 150-180's.
If I'm going into the woods abroad where weight is an issue, I generally carry:
70-200 2.8 + close-up lens or tubes
OR
300f4 IS + tubes / close-up lens
OR
180 Sigma macro
AND
100 2.8 macro

Apart from a WA (which can also give you very interesting results with tubes or a close-up filter), that shoud pretty much cover your needs.
All the best and have a good trip.

[keithvr]

The canon 100 2.8 is the lens to get as it is excellent with macro and once back home can still be used as a macro, a portrait lens, and also doubles as a great lens in poor light with the 2.8 app.

[gasrocks]

Is this a trip of a lifetime? In other words, will you be going back? And what are you going to take pix of once you get back? Myself, I wouldn't have ordered what you have. Seems like there should be some kinda relationship 'tween the price of trip and cost of the equipment. I'm biased - I'd spend more on the equipment.

[redroark]

Sorry for the delay in my response:
JNunn: the Bigma will be too big and heavy, and since I'm not bringing a tripod, will be only moderately useful in anything but perfect light.

Lester: Thank you for the flash advice...that is really really helpful, and I'll definitely remember that.

wombat and keith - I get it I get it, I need to get the 100 2.8

Gasrocks - this is a trip of a lifetime, and it has been quite expensive. For me, and my fiancee, the trip is more important than the pictures. In a perfect world I'd spend far more money on gear, and probably have better pictures. In this world, I have what I have, and buying both the 70-300 and the 100 2.8 is going to stretch my resources.

As a follow up question, no one here has mentioned the 50 1.8 or 1.4 in their list of gear to take with. Is it not worth bothering?

Howard

[steved110]

You will definitely need a wide angle for landscape shots - so don't leave your 17-85 behind. It's a sunny country so you woun't find light too much of an issue except maybe deep in the jungle.
As for a macro, a 100mm will give you greater working distance, and this avoids both spooking shy creatures, and getting bitten or stung when you p*ss them off. as for a 50mm prime, you have that covered with the 17-85. it's a holiday, you said? don't spoil it by having too much gear to worry about!
I am not sure how much use a 70-300 would be but best to take it, and I'd suggest a flash also.
In addition find out beforehand how easy you will find it to recharge your batteries, and make sure you have the right electrical adapters. and take as many 1-2Gb cards as you can afford too.

and finally, you will need sunscreen. :) Enjoy!

[redroark]

Steved,

Have you been to Madagascar? If so, I'd appreciate any advice you have, photography related or not.

H

[CyberDyneSystems]

The two lenses I'm definitely bringing to Mada are my 17-85IS, and the 70-300 IS USM that I'll be getting once B & H gets them back in stock. I was originally (pre macro thoughts) going to pick up a nifty 50 to round out the kit, but then I started thinking that a low light macro would be more versatile - either the 60 2.8 EF-S, or one of the 100 mm 2.8 macros.



100mm macro and 100-400mm L IS, some rings and your 17-85mm .
The 100mm will get you the ultra close ups, and offer some semblance of working distance, the 100-400mm with it;'s IS and built in amazing focus distance will work as a "sorta macro" on it's own.. and offer all the safe working distance you could want. Add some rings/tubes (forget diopters) and you are all set for anything.

[CyberDyneSystems]

As a follow up question, no one here has mentioned the 50 1.8 or 1.4 in their list of gear to take with. Is it not worth bothering?

Howard

You have trhe range covered in your 17mm zoom..
What your lacking is long range and macro... keep your eye on the ball :)

[redroark]

If I could only afford the 100-400 L. I am kind of torn between renting the 100-400 and buying the 70-300. Also, there is quite a weight difference between 3 pounds (100-400) and 1.4 pounds (70-300) that makes the cheaper option even more attractive. I'm also not a fan of tubes because they will take quite a while to put on, and I don't want to hold my fiancee up for that long. The dipter option or dedicated macro option is more attractive, because there's less steps involved.

Howard