Macro and "Walk-Around" lens questions

[taffy12]

Two questions, if you don't mind:

 

What really is the difference between a lens like a 50mm f/2.5 compact micro and a 50 mm f/1.8 prime? I had the latter already, and I'd like a macro lens...but is there enough of a difference?

 

And what would you recommend as far as a walk-around lens for a Canon camera? I have an 18-55mm and a 55-250mm, and I find it annoying to have to keep changing lenses when I'm out and about...especially on excursions where I'd prefer not to lug my whole camera bag. Are there any good, affordable lenses out there that cover both ranges?

[pierces]

Two questions, if you don't mind:

 

What really is the difference between a lens like a 50mm f/2.5 compact micro and a 50 mm f/1.8 prime? I had the latter already, and I'd like a macro lens...but is there enough of a difference?

 

And what would you recommend as far as a walk-around lens for a Canon camera? I have an 18-55mm and a 55-250mm, and I find it annoying to have to keep changing lenses when I'm out and about...especially on excursions where I'd prefer not to lug my whole camera bag. Are there any good, affordable lenses out there that cover both ranges?

 

The second first: Canon makes an 18-200 superzoom and both Sigma and Tamron offer lenses that cover the 18-250 or 18-270 range. Very convenient for travel.

 

Now for the macro: here is an excerpt from an article I wrote on adding lenses to your equipment list'

Macro lenses are specially-designed to focus down to extremely short distances and produce a flat field of focus for copying documents and such. True macro lenses will focus close enough that the image produced on 35mm film or a full-frame sensor is life-size. In other words, if you took a 35mm slide of a dime, the image on the slide would be the same size as the dime. This is called a 1:1 macro. You’ll see a lot of zoom lenses with “macro” tacked onto their names. These lenses focus close, but seldom give more than a 1:4 ratio (the image on the film would ¼ the size of the dime). Macro lenses are usually f/2.8 and come in 50mm - 200mm fixed focal lengths. Whether 50mm or 200mm, they seldom get closer than 1:1 but the longer the lens, the farther away you can be from the subject at 1:1. This is important for photographing small living things that get nervous as things get closer. These lenses are also useful for normal photography and the longer focal lengths can double as a high quality short to medium telephoto. There are other types of macro lenses that focus insanely close and with give 3:1 or even 5:1 ratios but unlike regular macro lenses they have limited use in non-macro photography.

 

THe rest of the article can be found here: http://pptphoto.com/articles/addinglenses.html

 

Hope that helped!

 

Dave

[awboater]

I carry a 18-200mm super zoom for travel, as it is more convenient than carrying a bag of lenses.

 

One thing you should know about super zooms though is that the higher the zoom power, the less optically perfect they are.

 

I have found with my 18-200mm lens, I can see blurriness in the corners when used wide open. But if I stop down to f/8, the lens is pretty decent. So in reality, this is a daylight lens - and I am willing to trade the f/8 self-imposed restriction for the convenience of travel.

 

Besides, most of my cruise photography is in daylight conditions.

 

So when you decide which is best; a 18-200mm or 18-270mm, or a similar lens, take into consideration any optical issues each lens may have. You might find that the 18-200 will be acceptable, but the 18-270 just goes too far in optical deficiency...

 

or not.

 

When choosing a macro lens, there are two tradeoffs. At the low end, say 40mm, the DoF will be wider, but you have to get closer. This means it might be harder to photograph bugs, but should work fine for most inanimate objects.

 

On the opposite end, a 105mm macro will allow you to stay back a bit (just a few inches more really), so it is better for bugs. But the DoF is less than at 40mm, and is exceedingly wafer-thin. For that reason, you may often use the lens at minimum aperture; which can be as small as f/64 on some macro lenses.

 

And you almost have to make sure the lens is perpendicular with the object to get everything in focus due to the short DoF. At 40mm, it is not as much of a concern.

 

As a side note, you really don't have to worry much about diffraction as the DoF limitation is going to be the biggest problem. The shallow DoF is going to mitigate any blur from diffraction.

 

Anyway, using the lens at f/22 or smaller usually means you need a macro flash - even in the bright daylight.

 

I have two macro lenses; a 40mm f/2.8 and a 100mm f/2.8. I use the 40mm for everything but bugs as the DoF is a lot wider, and I can get different angle shots as I don't have to worry about DoF as much (although it is still only inches). With the 40mm lens, I can also usually use the camera's autofocus system.

 

I use the 100mm only when I am shooting bugs, which also means I need to use the macro flash, and a tripod, and focus manually. This is a lot more technically challenging, but the rewards are worth it.

 

Sometimes I will take my 40mm macro on a cruise, as it is fairly small, and not much of a problem to take along. The 100mm macro never goes on a cruise as I would also have to carry a macro flash kit, tripod, etc.

 

If you are choosing a macro lens, I would pick a 40mm or even perhaps 60mm macro for general use. Go with a 100/105mm or 200mm only if you realize they are more challenging to use, and you will likely have to buy a macro flash at some point along the way.

[mnbruce]

 

 

 

I have two macro lenses; a 40mm f/2.8 and a 100mm f/2.8. I use the 40mm for everything but bugs as the DoF is a lot wider, and I can get different angle shots as I don't have to worry about DoF as much (although it is still only inches). With the 40mm lens, I can also usually use the camera's autofocus system.

 

I use the 100mm only when I am shooting bugs, which also means I need to use the macro flash, and a tripod, and focus manually. This is a lot more technically challenging, but the rewards are worth it.

 

 

I recently purchased the 100mm 2.8L. That narrow DOF is a challenge but the bokeh is really sweet. Since it's still winter here and there are no bugs or flowers to shoot, I have been testing it to see how versatile it can be. I can definitely see me using this lens for more than just macro photography after seeing the results. Which macro flash do you use?

[donaldsc]

One other thing to consider with the wide range zoom lens - lens creep. I do not know if it is a problem w the current crop of lenses but I have a Nikon 18-205 that I bought maybe 5 years ago. When you carry it with the lens hanging lens down which is the way you will be carrying it, the lens extends to the telephoto position because of the weight of the glass end of the lens. This can be a pain at times.

 

Other people on the board may know if this is a problem with newer lenses or lenses from other vendors but I find it really annoying.

 

DON

[mskaufman]

I am very happy with my Tamron 18-270. Last year on my Med cruise I think I only took it off once.

[ginger and professor]

I carried the canon 18-200 as an all around travel lens for several years. I was overall pleased with the lens but did notice some distortion at the far end of the zoom. The lens is subject to creep but fortunately they have a lock button on the side. After a short while you learn to keep the lens locked when walking around. I have recently changed to the 24-105 L lens. It is quite a bit sharper and I find that the loss of length is more than made up for by the sharpness of the lens and the speed of the AF.

[awboater]

Which macro flash do you use?

 

I started out with the Metz 15, which I really liked. Unfortunately, the iTTL function did not work, and after contacting Metz, they suggested I return it for a new one.

 

But at the time (2yr ago) there were virtually no new stock in the US. I got it from Amazon, and I suspect maybe it was a re-shipped item from a previous return. Can't say for sure though, but I could not get another.

 

So I bought the Nikon R1. While it is a fine flash, it is not quite as portable as the Metz was. Still, it is fairly versatile, and I do like that you can remove one of the flash heads and use it for back-lighting, etc.

 

One thing if you are interested in the R1 (and of course have a Nikon), this is a wireless flash, so if you have an entry level Nikon, you need to buy the R1C1, which includes the remote commander, as the D3xxx and D5xxx cameras do not have wireless remote flash capability.

 

I am using a Nikon d90, and it has a built in wireless flash commander, so it will work with the R1, which is the same thing minus the commander (and $200 less expensive)

 

If you want a small compact unit, then I'd try the Metz 15. It is also wireless, and it has a learning feature so it will learn your camera (it works with all the major brands of cameras). If you have an entry level Nikon, to get the wireless feature to work, you need to buy the SU800, which is the same remote commander as the Nikon R1C1 has. Otherwise, you can use a PC synch cable, but the flash will be manual mode only.

[awboater]

One other thing to consider with the wide range zoom lens - lens creep.

 

The first version of the Nikon 18-200mm also has lens creep, but if you buy version 2 of the lens (the current version), there is a lock switch that you can lock the lens at 18mm so it does not creep.

[knittinggirl]

The first version of the Nikon 18-200mm also has lens creep, but if you buy version 2 of the lens (the current version), there is a lock switch that you can lock the lens at 18mm so it does not creep.

There's a spot on the lens where it doesn't creep. Can't remember where off the top of my head, I think it's in the middle of the zoom. Never takes me long to figure where the creep happens though.

[glojo]

One thing you should know about super zooms though is that the higher the zoom power, the less optically perfect they are. .

That is certainly news to me BUT.....

 

With a zoom lens you will get what you pay for.

 

I am not sure Canon produce a 200 - 400mm lens of the same quality as that of Nikon and NO this is not your Nikon vs Canon type silly debate... The Nikon lens is simply a far superior product. One sells for approximately £1k the other for roughly £5k but..

 

The Nikon is pin sharp throughout the range and amazingly fast at focussing for a zoom lens and yes it is EXPENSIVE but in life we get what we pay for. A cheap prime telephoto lens is probably less optically perfect than a more expensive one.

 

Going back to the original question..

 

Macro lens

What do you want to do with that lens?

 

When we go on a cruise I would like to think we are going to places we might not see that often. The macro lens is an amazing item that will take mind blowing pictures of creatures\insects we might never see again. This might be your only chance of snapping them.

 

If this is the case then I would strongly recommend something in the region of 100mm. If you were a Nikon man it is a no brainer with the 105mm lens but Canon will no doubt have something similar.

 

If you buy a 55mm macro lens then as soon as you get a taste for snapping bugs, you will be selling it and getting something better.

 

I am told Sigma make a very nice 105mm macro with stability control

[mnbruce]

I started out with the Metz 15, which I really liked. Unfortunately, the iTTL function did not work, and after contacting Metz, they suggested I return it for a new one.

 

But at the time (2yr ago) there were virtually no new stock in the US. I got it from Amazon, and I suspect maybe it was a re-shipped item from a previous return. Can't say for sure though, but I could not get another.

 

So I bought the Nikon R1. While it is a fine flash, it is not quite as portable as the Metz was. Still, it is fairly versatile, and I do like that you can remove one of the flash heads and use it for back-lighting, etc.

 

One thing if you are interested in the R1 (and of course have a Nikon), this is a wireless flash, so if you have an entry level Nikon, you need to buy the R1C1, which includes the remote commander, as the D3xxx and D5xxx cameras do not have wireless remote flash capability.

 

I am using a Nikon d90, and it has a built in wireless flash commander, so it will work with the R1, which is the same thing minus the commander (and $200 less expensive)

 

If you want a small compact unit, then I'd try the Metz 15. It is also wireless, and it has a learning feature so it will learn your camera (it works with all the major brands of cameras). If you have an entry level Nikon, to get the wireless feature to work, you need to buy the SU800, which is the same remote commander as the Nikon R1C1 has. Otherwise, you can use a PC synch cable, but the flash will be manual mode only.

 

 

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure why I thought you were using the Canon 100mm, which I am using on my Canon 60D. I guess I will probably just end up with one of the Canon macro flashes.

[eman845]

I upgraded my basic lens to an 18-105 mm when I bought my Nikon, and it is perfect for walkaround. I will keep the 70-300 zoom on board for landscape or bird shots in port. It is too heavy to carry both when touring.

[awboater]

That is certainly news to me BUT.....

 

 

Just to clarify, when I say super-zoom, I mean the amount of magnification from the telephoto to the wide angle focal length - not lenses with a long focal length.

 

For example, a 18-300mm lens would be a 16x lens, and anything beyond 12x is typically classified as a super-zoom. A 200-400mm telephoto on the other hand, is in the range of a super-telephoto, but it is not a super-zoom (as it is a 2x lens).

 

The "x" power is derived from dividing the telephoto focal length by the wide-angle focal length.

 

My statement about lens quality is limited to super-zooms, not super-telephoto lenses. I just wanted to clear up any confusion in that regard.

 

It is fairly well known that especially when you go beyond 12x, lens quality becomes more and more of an issue. This is true whether you have a DSLR or compact camera. Of course there are some variations depending on brand of lens and focal lengths covered, but they all at some point start to degrade.

 

And, if you want the sharpest lens, you need a prime.

 

I have a Nikon 18-200mm, and even at just under 12x, I can start to see some softness in the lens when used wide open - more so than compared with my prime lenses or lower power zooms. If I stop the lens down to f/8, the lens tends to be pretty sharp, and on par with my lower power zooms.

 

So this is my daylight lens, and I am willing to sacrifice good low light performance for the convenience of traveling with less lenses. When I am at home, I rarely use this lens.

 

I also owned a bridge/compact camera a few years ago that had a super-zoom. I disliked it so much I got rid of it within a couple of months. The lens's optical quality was horrendous.

 

This is the primary reason I disdain bridge cameras. Admittedly, my experience with different bridge cameras is limited by my experience, both mine and the few people I know that have bought them, I imagine there may be some exceptions, but I doubt it.

 

After all, especially in a bridge camera, how good do you think a lens costing maybe $50 is going to be?

 

It's just my opinion, and my experience with the lenses and cameras I have owned, or my camera friends have agreed with from their experiences.

[glojo]

Just to clarify, when I say super-zoom, I mean the amount of magnification from the telephoto to the wide angle focal length - not lenses with a long focal length.

 

For example, a 18-300mm lens would be a 16x lens, and anything beyond 12x is typically classified as a super-zoom. A 200-400mm telephoto on the other hand, is in the range of a super-telephoto, but it is not a super-zoom (as it is a 2x lens).

 

The "x" power is derived from dividing the telephoto focal length by the wide-angle focal length.

 

My statement about lens quality is limited to super-zooms, not super-telephoto lenses. I just wanted to clear up any confusion in that regard.

 

It is fairly well known that especially when you go beyond 12x, lens quality becomes more and more of an issue. This is true whether you have a DSLR or compact camera. Of course there are some variations depending on brand of lens and focal lengths covered, but they all at some point start to degrade.

 

And, if you want the sharpest lens, you need a prime.

 

I have a Nikon 18-200mm, and even at just under 12x, I can start to see some softness in the lens when used wide open - more so than compared with my prime lenses or lower power zooms. If I stop the lens down to f/8, the lens tends to be pretty sharp, and on par with my lower power zooms.

 

So this is my daylight lens, and I am willing to sacrifice good low light performance for the convenience of traveling with less lenses. When I am at home, I rarely use this lens.

 

I also owned a bridge/compact camera a few years ago that had a super-zoom. I disliked it so much I got rid of it within a couple of months. The lens's optical quality was horrendous.

 

This is the primary reason I disdain bridge cameras. Admittedly, my experience with different bridge cameras is limited by my experience, both mine and the few people I know that have bought them, I imagine there may be some exceptions, but I doubt it.

 

After all, especially in a bridge camera, how good do you think a lens costing maybe $50 is going to be?

 

It's just my opinion, and my experience with the lenses and cameras I have owned, or my camera friends have agreed with from their experiences.

 

I think you have made some very valid and worthwhile observations. I threw in that 400 zoom lens as it is a very nice piece of glass. I believe there are better but by crikey they cost an awful lot of money.. The Sigma beast comes to mind but as you rightly suggest.... we get what we pay for.

 

We all have different tastes, we all have differing ideas about what is acceptable and the bottom line is that we enjoy our photography and snapping what we like to snap :)

[ikirumata]

One other thing to consider with the wide range zoom lens - lens creep. I do not know if it is a problem w the current crop of lenses but I have a Nikon 18-205 that I bought maybe 5 years ago. When you carry it with the lens hanging lens down which is the way you will be carrying it, the lens extends to the telephoto position because of the weight of the glass end of the lens. This can be a pain at times.

 

Other people on the board may know if this is a problem with newer lenses or lenses from other vendors but I find it really annoying.

 

DON

 

Lens/zoom creep is a problem with a lot of lenses. I bought a new/refurb Canon 17-55 F2.8 that had lens/zoom creep pretty bad. If I would point the lens downward, the lens would quickly slide out to its extended position...not gradually, but rather rapidly. To alleviate the problem, I cut two narow strips of gorilla tape and put them on opposite sides of the lens barrel (in front of the zoom ring) and this gave it enough friction to keep the lens in whatever position. Now it takes some major shaking to get the lens to creep.

[awboater]

eBay (and others I suppose) has several vendors that sell what is essentially a thick/wide rubber band. You are supposed to put those on the lens around where the zoom ring is, half on the ring, and half off, and it is supposed to keep it from moving.

 

Simple idea if it does work.