Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 14 Mar 2015 (Saturday) 09:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Time for me to buy a Macro

 
yamatama
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Mar 14, 2015 09:58 |  #1

Ok so I decided to buy a Macro lens for detail shots on weddings. I know Macro glass are a specialty lenses and I have read tons of photographers that besides Macro phototography they barely use those lenses in other situations. Im between the Canon 100 2.8 L IS and the Sigma 105 2.8 OS which I have read great things. My question is, how do these lenses perform using them for portraits? Or what other uses do you guys have with these lenses. And if anyone have had experience with the sigma lens, do you recommend it?

Thanks in advance and sorry for my poor english haha.


Nikon D750, 35 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 24-70 2.8G, 70-200 2.8G
My website www.williamdelacruz.co​m (external link)
FB like page https://www.facebook.c​om/WilliamDeLaCruzPhot​o (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
shaftmaster
Goldmember
Avatar
1,429 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: above 5000 feet
     
Mar 14, 2015 10:00 |  #2

Have you considered a set of extension tubes? I hear the 135L makes a pretty good macro lens when used with an extension tube.


Paul

Gear -- Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
l89kip
Senior Member
584 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Jan 2010
     
Mar 14, 2015 10:18 |  #3

Canon 100 2.8 L IS is great for portraits. It's sharp wide open. It's super for macro and excellent for portraits.


Gear: 7D II, 6D | EF-S 17-55 | 35/2, 85/1.8, 35 L,100L,135L, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200 F/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 C | 580 EX II, 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EnglishBob
Senior Member
Avatar
555 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 118
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Clovis, California.
     
Mar 14, 2015 10:21 |  #4

Not on your list but I have the Sigma 150 2.5 Macro and love it, probably taken more portraits with it than I have Macro Shots. Tack Sharp wide open or stopped way down. I like the working Distance with it for Portraits.


Gallery (external link) MyGear (external link) About Me (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,374 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4409
Joined Dec 2008
Post edited over 5 years ago by LV Moose. (7 edits in all)
     
Mar 14, 2015 10:22 |  #5

This lens is very nice on a FF, which I see you have. This is my first ever attempt at portraits/senior shoots. Would have been a little long on a crop in a tight space.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1410157

And of course I love it for macro, either by itself of with tubes.

Edit. If you're going to be using this mainly for wedding detail... rings and such... A shorter lens might be better; something in the 60-90mm range. If you might find yourself shooting bugs in the future, 90-105mm.

Opinions may, and will, vary ;)


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,508 posts
Gallery: 1854 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11431
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Mar 14, 2015 10:24 |  #6

yamatama wrote in post #17474573 (external link)
Ok so I decided to buy a Macro lens for detail shots on weddings. I know Macro glass are a specialty lenses and I have read tons of photographers that besides Macro phototography they barely use those lenses in other situations. Im between the Canon 100 2.8 L IS and the Sigma 105 2.8 OS which I have read great things. My question is, how do these lenses perform using them for portraits? Or what other uses do you guys have with these lenses. And if anyone have had experience with the sigma lens, do you recommend it?

Thanks in advance and sorry for my poor english haha.

Heya,

They're no different from any other lens in that focal length and aperture. 100 F2.8 (or equivalent, 90mm, 105mm, etc) are just as good at portrait as any other "portrait" lens. They're sharp and fast. Plenty of isolation. Both natural light or studio use. The only difference is they have a much closer minimum focus distance that achieves 1:1 magnification (this is what defines them as macro lenses).

I'd get the Sigma for cost effectiveness (cheaper than the Canon, does the same job, performs equivalent, if not better).

Realistically though, do you need a lens? Why not just attach a diopter or use a set of extension tubes and make any lens you have into macro? Way cheaper.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yamatama
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Mar 14, 2015 12:26 as a reply to  @ MalVeauX's post |  #7

I have read about extension tube but totally forgot about them. How would they work with a lens like The 135? Is there a quality decrease? whats the diference from a true macro? I was considereng those 2 because I love IS on lenses but ia it that valuable on macro lenses?


Nikon D750, 35 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 24-70 2.8G, 70-200 2.8G
My website www.williamdelacruz.co​m (external link)
FB like page https://www.facebook.c​om/WilliamDeLaCruzPhot​o (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EnglishBob
Senior Member
Avatar
555 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 118
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Clovis, California.
     
Mar 14, 2015 12:32 |  #8

Extension Tubes decrease the minimum focus distance for a lens, so you can get MUCH closer and of course results in a larger image on the frame.

The ones I have still allow auto focusing and I picked them up for under $30 on Amazon. There is no quality loss as there is no glass in them.... I pair mine with the Sigma Macro lens and get REALLY close LOL. The ones I have are: Red Metal Extension Tubes (external link)

Seems they have gone up in the last few weeks.


Gallery (external link) MyGear (external link) About Me (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
10,062 posts
Gallery: 467 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 25125
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Mar 14, 2015 12:45 |  #9

yamatama wrote in post #17474735 (external link)
I have read about extension tube but totally forgot about them. How would they work with a lens like The 135? Is there a quality decrease? whats the diference from a true macro? I was considereng those 2 because I love IS on lenses but ia it that valuable on macro lenses?

Extension tubes work great on most lenses. Note, however, that they are more effective on shorter focal length lenses. You can use more than one, or a longer one, to get more magnification.

By magnification, I mean the ratio of image size (on the sensor) to the actual size. So, if you are shooting a flower that is 72mm wide and fill the 35mm format frame with it, the magnification is 36mm/72mm = 0.5, or 1:2.

The best way to find what magnifications are possible with different lenses and extension tubes is to look the information up in the lens manuals.

Extension tubes are empty tubes (no glass inside), so some say they have no effect on image quality. But they cause the lens to focus at a distance it was not designed for, and in that sense there could be some deterioration of IQ. Usually it is not noticeable. Anyway, most of the time when shooting macro or closeup, you stop down to f/11 or f/16 to gain DOF, and that also causes some IQ deterioration, also with macro lenses. Most of the time all lenses look the same at f/16.

A true macro lens is more convenient than a regular lens with extension tubes because you can focus close without removing the lens and fitting the tubes. A true macro can also be sharper because they are prime lenses, and are designed for close work - but see the comment about shooting at f/16.

IS is very useful until you get close to your subject (roughly around 1:2). Then the usefulness is gradually reduced but may still help.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,508 posts
Gallery: 1854 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11431
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 5 years ago by MalVeauX. (3 edits in all)
     
Mar 14, 2015 12:47 |  #10

yamatama wrote in post #17474735 (external link)
I have read about extension tube but totally forgot about them. How would they work with a lens like The 135? Is there a quality decrease? whats the diference from a true macro? I was considereng those 2 because I love IS on lenses but ia it that valuable on macro lenses?

Heya,

Zero quality loss, there are not optics involved, you're just increasing distance from sensor to flange. This decreases the minimum focus distance to register closer, which results in higher magnification.

There's no difference between a macro lens and a non-macro lens other than the design difference for registration of minimum focal distance to allow for 1:1 magnification. 1:1 is macro. That's it's only real practical definition from a lens aspect. Or, 1:1 or greater, I should say. If it's less than 1:1, it's not macro (even if they mark it as such, which they do commonly).

I use a 360mm (2:1 magnification) macro setup. I don't use IS/OS/VC at all. I have no real use for it. I'm sure it's useful in the view finder. But I seem to do fine without it, and I'm always at 1/200s shutter, or less, because I'm using a flash 99% of the time.

Everything I'm saying is from a practical point of view, not a measurement club or gear-head point of view. If you're just doing basic macro for detail stuff, what is being suggested is more than enough, as I would not suggest buying a specific lens for it.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,374 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4409
Joined Dec 2008
     
Mar 14, 2015 15:29 |  #11

yamatama wrote in post #17474735 (external link)
I was considereng those 2 because I love IS on lenses but ia it that valuable on macro lenses?

Different strokes for different folks, but I always use IS for macro, except on those rare occasions where I use a tripod. I have shaky hands, and if nothing else, IS helps me get and maintain focus, especially since you're working with a pretty thin DoF.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canon ­ Bob
Goldmember
2,063 posts
Likes: 52
Joined May 2007
Location: Poitou-Charentes, France
Post edited over 5 years ago by Canon Bob. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 14, 2015 15:35 |  #12

MalVeauX wrote in post #17474762 (external link)
Zero quality loss, there are not optics involved, you're just increasing distance from sensor to flange. This decreases the minimum focus distance to register closer, which results in higher magnification.

That certainly mirrors what gets written ever so frequently here and other similar places...but is it right?

Quite simply...no.

By moving the lens away from the sensor we increase the size of the image circle in the same way that a typical flashlight produces an ever increasing pool of light as the distance to the illuminated surface increases. For example; we add enough extension to double the size of the image circle but obviously still capture the part that covers the sensor....we've doubled the magnification...but the resolution within that circle must be halved. The caveat is that the lens may be capable of out resolving the sensor but we're generally not experiencing that with today's high Mp sensors.
So..."Zero quality loss, there are not optics involved" is not true.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17474762 (external link)
There's no difference between a macro lens and a non-macro lens other than the design difference for registration of minimum focal distance to allow for 1:1 magnification.

That may have been true 50+ years ago but not today. It's probably better to think of a typical modern macro lens being like a non-macro lens but having a variable teleconverter/extender installed within it.

All that said, the addition of an extension tube to something like the suggested option of a 135/2 L will still provide enough quality for the OP's intended usage.


Bob


1Dx2 (2), 5DSR, 1Ds3, 1D4, 5D2(590nm), 5D2(720nm) EF600 EF400 EF300-II EF300 EF200 EF200-II EF180L EF135L EF100 EF85-II EF50L TS-E17/4 TS-E24L-II TS-E45 TS-E90 MP-E65 EF70-200-II EF24-70/2.8-II EF16-35/4 EF8-15/4 EF11-24/4 Zeiss 15/2.8 21/2.8 25/2 28/2 35/1.4 35/2 50/2 85/1.4 100/2 135/2 T/C's L-SC & a WIFE!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yamatama
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Mar 14, 2015 23:08 |  #13

Ok so extension tubes seemd like the way to go, aside from the red metal extension witch others you recommend


Nikon D750, 35 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 24-70 2.8G, 70-200 2.8G
My website www.williamdelacruz.co​m (external link)
FB like page https://www.facebook.c​om/WilliamDeLaCruzPhot​o (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
10,062 posts
Gallery: 467 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 25125
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Mar 14, 2015 23:23 |  #14

yamatama wrote in post #17475410 (external link)
Ok so extension tubes seemd like the way to go, aside from the red metal extension witch others you recommend

Kenko.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MegBear26
Member
103 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2012
     
Mar 14, 2015 23:31 |  #15

l89kip wrote in post #17474585 (external link)
Canon 100 2.8 L IS is great for portraits. It's sharp wide open. It's super for macro and excellent for portraits.

^^THIS. I have the 100 2.8L IS Macro and it's an amazing lens. Some people don't like such a sharp lens for portraits, but I do and it works beautifully for that *and* for macro or shots with a lot of detail.


Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 135 f/2L | Canon 100 f/2.8L Macro | Sigma 85 f/1.4 Art | Canon 50 f/1.8 | Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,030 views & 0 likes for this thread
Time for me to buy a Macro
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is joejenkinsphotos
714 guests, 263 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.