My wish list...In what order should I purchase them?

Gotcha..I must have read that incorrectly.

Thanks

FlipsidE

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 will do 1:6.66. The Canon 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro will do 1:2, or 1:1 with the Lifesize Adapter. Such a short macro is generally not very desired by most people who wish to shoot macro. The working distance is very minimal, and the resulting DoF is also very minimal.

The 28-135mm IS is a very good lens, very convenient, but it's f/5.6 at the long end and thus not great for portraits because it's very slow and you get a larger DoF than an f/2.8. Many people like f/1.2 or 1.8 for portraits - at the very least you have more options for DoF and many many more options in low-light situations.

I'd stick with the Tamron vs the 28-135 for portraits. And the Tamron will produce a better image.


For a true macro, about the cheapest you can get is a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro for $370. I have one, and like it very much - well, I hate the AF because it's so slow, but it has fantastic optics. For the extra $100 I'd get the Canon if I were to do it again.

You guys are invaluable resources! I really appreciate it. I think that if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it right. I think the Tamron 28-75 will be my portrait lens. I'll work on Macro a bit later. I've heard that the 50mm f/1.8 is just a MUST HAVE no matter what type of photography you are into, so I'll probably pick that one up too.

Thanks

FlipsidE

Take a look at extension tubes for a cheap way to near-macro. A set of 2 (12mm, 20mm, and 36mm) is $130. A single 25mm is probably a better idea for $79. You *will* get 1:1 on the Tamron with one of these, but you might not like the working distance. But zoomed out to 75mm you should be close to 1:1 with a halfway decent working distance.

Well, maybe 1:2 as a very rough guess, since I just found that the min focus distance of the Tamron is 13". With a 25mm tube you might get only 6" of working distance and maybe get around 1:2.


What kind of macro do you want to do? Still objects, or live bugs? And to what extent? Do you really want 1:1? A tube on the Tamron won't be very good for chasing live bugs, but it would be very good for larger, non-moving objects.

I can agree wholeheartedly.

I wish you had said that an hour ago!

You will be *very* happy with those lenses, and only a bit sad that you can't do 1:1 macro.

Scottes wrote:
I wish you had said that an hour ago!

- Yeah...sorry bout that one. I needed a good talking through anyway to truly get a good handle on what lenses I needed.

Thanks again!!

FlipsidE

A temporary macro solution could be to get some extension tubes... These were taken with my 50 f/1.4 and some Kenko extension tubes. (at ~$130 for the 12mm, 20mm, and 36mm set.. it's not a bad deal). I'm guessing they would work well on the Tamron lens you want. Maybe others could weigh in with their input?

http://www.tofuboy.net​/upload/photos/CRW_506​4.jpg (resized)
http://www.tofuboy.net …hotos/canonultr​asonic.jpg (resized)
http://www.tofuboy.net​/upload/photos/waterdr​op.jpg (100% crop)

Note that for macro, you also must get the tripod, otherwise you'll have a hard time making sharp, shake free photos.

I'm without tripod for the moment (sold my tripod last week and the stupid shop where I ordered my new one says it's going to take longer because they're getting a new importer). I feel crippled!

The 50mm lens was a good purchase for myself. I went with the newer (plastic mount) lens but you may be able to find the older metal mount lens on ebay.....if you can find one at a decent price.

couple things:
- the tamron 90mm macro has better optics than the canon. the tamron and the canon make the sigma macro look like junk optically. the canon has better "feel" and fater & quieter (though not necessarily more accurate) AF than the tamron, but AF and macro don't really mix.

- i'm curious why we don't see more plugs for the 35mm and 28mm primes for the 1.6x digi slrs. these are more of a "normal" lens. the 50/1.8 really is more in the portrait range considering the magnification factor. the 35/2.0 isn't terribly expensive (well, 3x the bargain-basement price fo the 50... )

Well I had the Tamron 28-75 AND the 100mm Macro USM, and I prefer the Tamron for most everything. The 100mm is sharper, obviously, but the focus distance on the Tamron is minimal, and you can really have fun with it as a macro lens, although it's not a true 1:1, etc. It'll probably satisfy your macro itch.

Adam

Talking about wishs one of mine just came true. I just bought my first L
I got the 70-200 4L. Scratch that off my list . i can't wait till it comes

Glad the Tamron 28-75 does macro, mine'll be here on Monday, yay!

If you don't have a tripod, a tripod should be your first purchase. The 50 1.8 is pocket change, so get that next and the rest is up to you.