Printable View
My second choice for a Macro was the Tamron AF 180mm f/3.5. I have seen beautiful photos posted online taken with this lens. I decided against it for the sole reason that it does not have IS but other than that it appears to be a wonderful lens and is $350 cheaper than the Canon 100mm.
Ok, I see, if you think IS is more important to you then go with the 100mm L IS., the reason I like the IS is when I use it handhold for non macro shorts.happy purchasing and happy holiday!
Unless you shoot bugs for a living the 100 macro will do you just as good. If you NEED to get close to an elusive butterfly, a 180 makes sense.
I think that the 100 is the right choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJphoto
Juza is an amazing photographer. He could take those kinds of photos with a plastic bag over his lens. The 180 has its downsides, too.
The Canon 100 is as sharp, has much better AF, and is Canon's 3rd best lens for the money (after 85/1.8 and 70-200 f/4l usm).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt0725
YES! 300 is a complex yet user-friendly cross between super telephoto and 1:1 macro. In fact, I have seen many great macro photos (esp. of insects) taken with it and with extension tubes. I am no more experienced than you with photography, but I have used a large amount of lenses and the 300/4 is among my favorites.
cheers!
brendan[H]
Thanks, Brendan! The 300mm with an extender is my final choice! Now I'm wondering if I should still get the 100mm f/2.8 L macro also if the 300mm can take some pretty nice macro shots ....decisions decisions!!! [*-)]
Thanks so much for your help .....Happy Holidays!
Denise
Even though the 300mm takes great macros also, I think I will go with that and the 100mm for 1:1.
Your input has helped tremendously...thanks again!
Congratulations!
You will enjoy your new gear.
cheers!
brendan[H]
I have a 400mm f/5.6 Sigma, the 1:3 macro version of the lens, on a D100 body. It is amazing what a super telephoto can do when it comes to shooting pictures of small stuff because of the focal length. The neat thing is that you don't end up obscuring the natural lighting because you're not on top of the subject, so you can get a different look and aren't forced to use flash. Of course, you're close enough that you still can if you want. The f/5.6 makes for some nice bokeh because of the focal length, too.
I have just gotten a good tripod that is capable of holding this camera setup, so I will try to get some shots and show what I mean. Mostly have been handholding so far, and the results aren't necessarily post-worthy, but I can see what the combo is capable of.
I'd hate to add to your confusion - I know what it's like - but your decision is an unusual one for your first two lenses and I think you may find it restrictive.
With these lenses you'll be able to focus on macros and not-so-nervous wildlife. But IMO you'll find that for other, more everyday, subjects that these focal lengths are limiting.
Most people go for a "walk-around" zoom for their main lens, say the 17-55, 24-105 or 24-70; a few are happy with a prime, say 50mm. Many then go for one of the 70-200 variants for their second lens. This combination, while far from ideal for macros or wildlife, is IMO far more versatile.
I'm sure that you've considered these points, I just thought my tuppence might help. Either way best of luck and have fun! :)
I do have two lenses that came with the kit I purchased. I have a 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS and a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS so I thought the two new ones I have picked would help me venture into new territories. I may have to do some rethinking it seems like.
Thanks for you advice ...Happy Holidays! [:)]
Denise