Macro lens

[juraj]

Dear experts of macro photo,

if you wanted to buy some macro lens what would you prefer:
5,6/180mm or 4,0-5,6/70-300mm ?
Some advantages and disadvantages of these two types?

 

[john]

I'm betting your 70-300 mm is a Sigma or a Tamron that says it also does Macro. Anyhow, comparing a zoom to a prime for quality, the prime will almost always win. Oh, prime is another word for fixed focal length (the 180 mm).

 

[juraj]

Thanks John,

that`s what I`m thinking about. More comfortable work or higher quality photo. I go with zoom.

 

[john]

May I ask what camera you have or are going to buy?

 

[juraj]

It`s Canon EOS 300.

 

[john]

Do you mean the 300D or the 300? The D is the digital one, the other 300s are film.

 

[juraj]

Well, never digital (sorry, Tim)

. It`s a film one 4.0-5,6/28-90mm set. The photos I send here are the maximum I can take with 5.6-90mm.

 

[john]

What sort of scanner are you using? If you haven't already got one, may I advise that you purchase a film scanner rather than a flatbed scanner.

 

[juraj]

I use an old HP 3300 C.

 

[john]

What lens did you end up getting?

 

[juraj]

Well, as you can see still havn`t got any. I`m working on it

 

[michael]

What do you think of a 105mm macro?
Recently I bought a Cosina 105mm Macro via Ebay and the results are quite good.
In the past I used a 70-210mm "macrozoom", sometimes with a teleconverter. Unfortunately you usually need a lot of light for tolerable shots.
Digitally I recently got a Fuji S5000. For "Macro"-shots quite ok, but right now I don´t know whether the results fit print demands or not....

Cheers
Michael

 

[henk]

I think that when working with aperture /5,6 you will not be taking much salamander-shots out of your hands.

I originally had a / 3,5 50 mm and could make some shots but mostly in the dim light situtations like woods or like tanks you will end up working with flashes. I have done so for a real long time and there's nothging wrong with that but now I work mainly with the light that's present without flash and this gives so much more soft natural approach... I think that 5,6 is a bit of a low light situation, altough a 2,8 will cost much more (you can get some 100 mm ones secondhand at approx 300-400 EURO i think for most brands) I bought mine this way ...

 

[john]

Henk's on the ball here, though for his low light situations f/2.8 isn't going to cut it very often either so flash is the way to go. Good macro photographs intended as records (i.e. not artsy "look at my stylish/abstract/show-off flower photos" - yes I have a grudge) require a large depth of field and flash is your only option I'm afraid. If you can get a flash gun that will allow you to attach a diffusion dome (softens the light and spreads it out) then you should be laughing, provided the subject isn't too close to the lens that it gets shadowed by the lens when the flash goes off.