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 04 Apr 2011 (Monday) 23:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

good non-prime macro lens?

 
ekinnyc
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2011
Location: New York, NY
     
Apr 04, 2011 23:00 |  #1

on a recent trip, one of my trip mates had a tamron 28-75 2.8 macro. unfortunately it was a nikon so i couldnt try it on my camera, but after seeing her pics, i started thinking of perhaps going that route. i know its not a true macro camera, but rather a close-focusing one (not my words, i think i read it on the digital picture), but i am fine with that. i dont see this lens in production, and for not wanting to hunt around for it, i was wondering if there were any good recommended equivalents on the market now


6D| 35mm f/2 IS
Buying/Selling Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Apr 04, 2011 23:11 |  #2

Lots of zooms lenses have the word macro written on them somewhere = advertising crap usually. Why not get a macro prime lens like the rest of us do?


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eos_isomer
Senior Member
419 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Apr 04, 2011 23:11 |  #3

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS, very nice minimum focusing distance.


A CAMERA and some LENSES.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Apr 04, 2011 23:12 |  #4

Eos_isomer wrote in post #12159757 (external link)
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS, very nice minimum focusing distance.

I was going to recommend the old non-OS Sigma 17-70. It is cheaper, sharper wide open and it focuses even closer!


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Apr 04, 2011 23:13 |  #5

gasrocks wrote in post #12159756 (external link)
Lots of zooms lenses have the word macro written on them somewhere = advertising crap usually. Why not get a macro prime lens like the rest of us do?

That is true, but you can check the maximum magnification. That Tamron 28-75 has a .25x magnification, which is still quite close depending on your subject. A few zooms go to .33x and a couple go to .5 (the Sigma 17-70 I mentioned above being the closes focusing standard zoom at .43x). Ironically, the OP lists a 24-105L in his kit which has roughly the same magnification as his friend's Tamron 28-75 (.23x vs .25x)


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Revo
Senior Member
439 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
     
Apr 04, 2011 23:30 |  #6

Well, if you want a general walk around lens that has a good MFD, the newer Sigma 17-70 OS is great (I own one and really like it). I do have to say that it's not as strong after 35mm as it is below it. Below 35mm it's an amazing lens. After 35mm it's better than average, but not remarkable.

However, if you just want to have a zoom lens that can kind of do macro, I'd say get an extension tube.

A 12mm extension tube on your 17-50 will bring your MFD in a bit but will sacrifice your infinity focus (but that might be livable for certain situations), and if you want infinity back, just pop off the extension tube. A 25mm extension tube would bring your MFD in even closer (depending on the lens, possibly too close) but would eliminate more of your longer range focus.


Canon 5D Mark II | Canon 7D | Canon G11
24-105L| 70-200L IS II | 2x III Extender | Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS HSM | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 | 580EX II
Full Gear List | Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Avatar
10,596 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Pasadena, CA
     
Apr 04, 2011 23:47 as a reply to  @ Revo's post |  #7

Tamron makes a 28-75mm f2.8 lens for the Canon mount. From the posts above, I'd not recommend it if you are looking for an affordable macro/close focusing lens.
Consider the Canon 50mm f2.5 macro or a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro. They both have better image quality, is cheaper, and gives much more magnification 1:2 and 1:1 respectively.

Good luck.


Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ekinnyc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2011
Location: New York, NY
     
Apr 05, 2011 06:49 |  #8

thanks for the responses. time to do some reading!!

tkbslc wrote in post #12159778 (external link)
Ironically, the OP lists a 24-105L in his kit which has roughly the same magnification as his friend's Tamron 28-75 (.23x vs .25x)

maybe i dont fully understand, but isnt MFD the key here? i tried taking a macro-ish shot of a lens i was selling with my 24-105, and it just couldnt focus


6D| 35mm f/2 IS
Buying/Selling Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phreeky
Goldmember
3,514 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Australia
     
Apr 05, 2011 08:29 |  #9

ekinnyc wrote in post #12161269 (external link)
maybe i dont fully understand, but isnt MFD the key here? i tried taking a macro-ish shot of a lens i was selling with my 24-105, and it just couldnt focus

The max magnification tells you the size of the object that will fill the frame when at MFD. If it's 1:1 then the object that fills your frame will be the same size as your sensor.

If your 24-105 wouldn't focus closely, did you try switching to MF? It was probably just missing focus.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paddler4
Goldmember
Avatar
1,325 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2009
     
Apr 05, 2011 08:34 |  #10

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (which I own and love) is NOT a macro lens, despite what is written on the barrel.

First step is to decide whether you want a real macro lens, which is to say, one that reaches 1:1 magnification. (The image on the sensor is life size.) There may be a zoom that does this, but I have never seen one. All true macro lenses that I am aware of are primes.

On the other hand, if you don't need real macro, then the question is just how close you want to get, and whether you can get close enough with a lens that is not a true macro lens, coupled with extension tubes or a close-up diopter. I almost always use a dedicated macro lens for macro, but I will post one that I took with a 70-200 (not a true macro lens) with 68mm of extension (the full set of Kenko tubes):

IMAGE: http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Nature/Bugs/MG4982/959943071_PiUfk-L.jpg

Check out my photos at http://dkoretz.smugmug​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvrr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,755 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 134
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Chicago,IL
     
Apr 05, 2011 08:34 |  #11

gasrocks wrote in post #12159756 (external link)
Lots of zooms lenses have the word macro written on them somewhere = advertising crap usually. Why not get a macro prime lens like the rest of us do?

While I 100% agree with you I think the word macro means different things to differnet people. I would venture to say the OP wants a lens where he can get pictures of flowers and bugs, not see the divisions of the eye on a bottle fly.


Past Sale Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,624 posts
Gallery: 434 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 849
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Apr 05, 2011 08:43 |  #12

I'm going to chip in here with a second on check your manual focus and be prepared to move back a hair with your 24-105. Plus carrying an extension tube is easy to do for those times when you want to get a closer shot of a flower or bug.


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ekinnyc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2011
Location: New York, NY
     
Apr 05, 2011 09:19 |  #13

phreeky wrote in post #12161593 (external link)
If your 24-105 wouldn't focus closely, did you try switching to MF? It was probably just missing focus.

i did, but no dice

silvrr wrote in post #12161616 (external link)
While I 100% agree with you I think the word macro means different things to differnet people. I would venture to say the OP wants a lens where he can get pictures of flowers and bugs, not see the divisions of the eye on a bottle fly.

correct.... which is why i should clarify that i am not looking for 1:1 magnification. i will give an example:

the group trip was to brazil, where we spent 2 of the 10 days in the rainforest. the local guides took us on a jungle trek, and showed us many different plants, flowers, etc.... while i generally dont shoot fauna/flora, i wanted to capture some of the things i came across (like 2" long ants!!!). they came out somewhat OOF with my 17-50, whereas with my friend's close-focusing tamron, they came out tack-sharp.

thats really what i would like, a general purpose zoom that has decent MFD. its not a requirement, and by no means would i exchange my 24-105 for it, but i thought id raise the question, if for nothing more than just educating myself.


6D| 35mm f/2 IS
Buying/Selling Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Japers
Member
Avatar
192 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Palmetto Point, FL
     
Apr 05, 2011 09:23 |  #14

silvrr wrote in post #12161616 (external link)
..I think the word macro means different things to differnet people. I would venture to say the OP wants a lens where he can get pictures of flowers and bugs, not see the divisions of the eye on a bottle fly.

Agreed.

My 2ยข -> I took this picture with my Tamron 28-75 the other day, working distance was around 1 foot at 75mm. Not the best shot ever, heh, but for testing purposes, it shows what the lens could be capable of. I love my 28-75 for a million reasons, close focusing is just one of them. ;)

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

60D + Lenses = Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Apr 05, 2011 12:17 |  #15

ekinnyc wrote in post #12161269 (external link)
thanks for the responses. time to do some reading!!

maybe i dont fully understand, but isnt MFD the key here? i tried taking a macro-ish shot of a lens i was selling with my 24-105, and it just couldnt focus

It is part of the equation. The tamron 28-75 has a shorter MFD than your 24-105, but since it is only 75mm and your lens is 105mm, the size of the object in the frame works out to be nearly identical. That's the magnification number.

I have a 55-250 that has a MFD of 1m, but it gets me more magnification than a 28-75 because it is such a long lens.

The MFD of your 24-105 is 45cm (1.5 feet) which gives .23x magnification at 105mm, and considerably less as you zoom out from there.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

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

3,209 views & 0 likes for this thread
good non-prime macro lens?
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 Rebart
912 guests, 322 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.