Macro lens for Canon 350D & Wildflowers

[eeyore]

the cosina as i recall isnt a true 1:1 macro lens , it is a 1:2 which is supposedly transformed to 1:1 by a supplied adaptor (essentially a screw on close up filter) i know some others disagree but imo those on a budget would be better giving this lens the swerve and instead buying a set of extension tubes (79 notes in jessops) plus possibly an f1.8 50mm lens - 80 odd quid new but often under 50 second hand.

I am speaking from experience here having used a borrowed cosina , but been unhappy with the images which were very soft - I went the ext tubes route , after a brief flirtation with reversing a 50mm lens onto another one - but eventually plumped for a decent dedicated macro

as far as true macro lenses go i have used a tamron 90mm , and the canon 100mm plus had a brief play with a siggie 105 and i agree that these are all much of a muchness - the canon worked slightly better in AF but i normally use MF for macro anyway so that didnt justify the extra price for me - though it is a nice bit of kit

for someone cncentrating on flowers and other things that dont fly/run away there is also the cheaper options of the canon 50mm macro and the new sigma 70mm macro - i have never used either but have heard and read good things about them

[Gaina]

I got my Sigma 105 last week for £259.49 and I love it. Unfortunately I was confined to barracks with flu this weekend so I haven't tried it outside yet but here's a PRINT I put up on Deviant Art and I used the Sigma to take the photo (noise was added in photoshop).

[Fourwings]

I have to agree with Pete, if its macro on a tight budget that is required then try a fast 50mm lens coupled with extension tubes, I've seen the results from this kind of set up and they are really quite good.

[nightshade]

My first macro shots were with either a 35mm Takumar or a 135mmTakumar
and a set of tubes,best results with the 35mm (something to do with the reverse
telephoto construction?)
The 35mm was reversed and a strange double cable release and a screw on coupling
which retained the auto iris was used
The 135mm and single tube of any of the 3 sizes gave me my first dragonfly images
(in conjunction with a boomerang twin flash set-up)
My 105mm Sigma is also a superb beast,the toss up was between it and the Tamron
90 and only the better handling (in my opinion) of the Sigma won
I reverse the 35mm on the 105 and with a set kenko tubes and a light tent explore
new depths

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by speckled wood

You have forgotten the two most important elements which are the photographer and the place and circumstances in which the photograph was taken.

SW

Worth looking at these shots, some of which appear to have been taken using the Cosina 100 to 400 lense not quite the sharpness of the Sigma 50 to 500 but show that in the hands of a good photographer good results are possible with the Cosina, certainly not "Pants" or "Bobbins".

Bird Forum Galleries - All Images - Powered by PhotoPost

SW

Now back to the Macro debate

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by speckled wood

Worth looking at these shots, some of which appear to have been taken using the Cosina 100 to 400 lense not quite the sharpness of the Sigma 50 to 500 but show that in the hands of a good photographer good results are possible with the Cosina, certainly not "Pants" or "Bobbins".

Bird Forum Galleries - All Images - Powered by PhotoPost

SW

Now back to the Macro debate

you cant view those shots big without registering with bird forum and
I really cant be bothered - You know what I think and I know what you think - If you are happy with your 100-400 cosina and the quality it turns out then fine , i'm happy for you. Howeveras a semi pro I have extremely high standards (ie those that a picture editor would have) and thus the cosina is not good enough for me - end of.

Little bigma is just about tollerable but I am about to do my dough on either the pump or the OSsie (thats the pet name for the Sigma 80-400 OS)

none of which has anything to do with this thread or with the fact that IMO the cosina macro lens is total , utter, and complete bobbins - its out put is extremly soft , and it feels cheap plasticky and insubstantial and suffers from significant chromatic abberation. Now if you are happy with such (although you have said yourself that you have a siggie 105) then thats fine , but again I am not and I could not honestly reccoment anyone else to buy one

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by eeyore

you cant view those shots big without registering with bird forum and
I really cant be bothered - You know what I think and I know what you think - If you are happy with your 100-400 cosina and the quality it turns out then fine , i'm happy for you. Howeveras a semi pro I have extremely high standards (ie those that a picture editor would have) and thus the cosina is not good enough for me - end of.

But most people simply want to take photographs, and as a semi pro you are not a pro the difference is that of chalk and cheese, and if you can't be bothered to look at some excellent photographs then you can't really comment and bearing in mind that your are actually a very good and competant and keen photographer that is very sad, opening your eyes and opening your mind might well take you from a semi to a detached. But lots of people have made the same mistake that you are making

SW

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by speckled wood

But most people simply want to take photographs, and as a semi pro you are not a pro the difference is that of chalk and cheese, and if you can't be bothered to look at some excellent photographs then you can't really comment and bearing in mind that your are actually a very good and competant and keen photographer that is very sad, opening your eyes and opening your mind might well take you from a semi to a detached. But lots of people have made the same mistake that you are making

SW

As a semi pro I am not a pro ? - True I am not a full time proffesional , but my proffesional credentials are good enough for magazines to buy my shots , for people to order my photos as fine art, and for several serious wildlife photographers to compliment me on my portfolio and to sponsor me into pro only critique forums - frankly I think I'll give their judgement on whether I am a pro a bit more credence than yours. Actually I could go full time pro but dont want to as I also love my job

Most people simply want to take photos ? - true but i think most people who post asking for advice in the photography forums would rather take good photos - otherwise why ask ? and while the person behind the lens is an important element , having halfway decent kit helps too.

And as for not bothering to look at some excellent photos - If I want to look at excellent photos for inspiration we have an outstanding Gallery right here, I certainly get inspiration from Kev L , from Wolfhill, from Oy etc etc With this amazing resource at my finger tips I have no need to look on bird forum (no offence to steve kirk or his crew intended)

and finally unlike you I have actually used all the kit under discussion and thus I am qualified to comment on there various merits. Perhaps you should open your mind to the possibility that just because you bought a cosina 100-400 doesnt mean that it is any good, but then many people make this mistake too

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by eeyore

As a semi pro I am not a pro ? - True I am not a full time proffesional , but my proffesional credentials are good enough for magazines to buy my shots , for people to order my photos as fine art, and for several serious wildlife photographers to compliment me on my portfolio and to sponsor me into pro only critique forums - frankly I think I'll give their judgement on whether I am a pro a bit more credence than yours. Actually I could go full time pro but dont want to as I also love my job

Most people simply want to take photos ? - true but i think most people who post asking for advice in the photography forums would rather take good photos - otherwise why ask ? and while the person behind the lens is an important element , having halfway decent kit helps too.

And as for not bothering to look at some excellent photos - If I want to look at excellent photos for inspiration we have an outstanding Gallery right here, I certainly get inspiration from Kev L , from Wolfhill, from Oy etc etc With this amazing resource at my finger tips I have no need to look on bird forum (no offence to steve kirk or his crew intended)

and finally unlike you I have actually used all the kit under discussion and thus I am qualified to comment on there various merits. Perhaps you should open your mind to the possibility that just because you bought a cosina 100-400 doesnt mean that it is any good, but then many people make this mistake too

But I have never said that just because I bought it that the Cosina 100 to 400 lense means that it is any good, you have simply tried to twist what I have said about it out of context, and compared it in this thread with one of your own photographs which of course was taken in virtual "safari park conditions", the simple truth is that my buzzard shot would have been no better had it been taken by a Sigma 50 to 100 or a IS prime lense and if you had bothered to look at the image you would see that its faults lie in the fact that the original was (quite obviously over-exposed), and that its apparent noise comes from an high ISO setting being used and that further compression has introduced high levels of archiving none these factors have any connection with the lense itself.

What actually sells your images to magazines and as fine art prints is the quality of the image conbined with you marketing them, but this is not the same as "proffesional credentials", as to people complemeting you on your work ... if it is good they will, but then plenty of people away from this forum (and a few in this forum) have complemented me on the Buzzard photograph (and two or three who insulted me) but I simply recognise it for what it is which was a picture taken by chance that I was not prepared for and which I could not repeat on the day, but then I recognise that the image you have compared it with is much better and more importantly I know why that image is much better and that in that instance that these reasons have nothing to do with the lense there is much to suggest that you are a very highly gifted amateur but stepping into a world where you have to pay the mortgage and feed the family on the results of your photography rather than sell a 150 year as a sideline are a very different reality and the "cut throat standards" there are something that you might not be comfortable with. In the world of "fine art" some of the best selling work is not always of the best technical quality and "tastefully" out of focus images abound, indeed my Buzzard photograph might actually have more "artistic" appeal than your better produced Gigrin Farm images. But then I don't take photographs with the idea of selling them and taking photographs is very secondary to why I go to the places that I take them. I am simply interested in wildlife, if photography was my prime interest I would spend all my time money and effort on photography and on photography forums andif I was a Professional Photographer I would doing what most Professional Photographers do which is to spend most of my time looking for and taking photographs that I knew would sell to photographic agencies or of course join the staff of a newspaper as a Photographer. But there are far easier and more interesting ways to spend my time and make a living, and some of these photographic "types" are so touchy and temperemental.

SW

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by speckled wood

if you had bothered to look at the image you would see that its faults lie in the fact that the original was (quite obviously over-exposed), and that its apparent noise comes from an high ISO setting being used and that further compression has introduced high levels of archiving none these factors have any connection with the lense itself.

Its strange that ... given that you started an entire thread about this image being rejected from the Gallery.... that you now claim that it is "quite obviously overexposed" and noisy from high ISO,

Originally Posted by speckled wood

there is much to suggest that you are a very highly gifted amateur but stepping into a world where you have to pay the mortgage and feed the family on the results of your photography rather than sell a 150 year as a sideline are a very different reality and the "cut throat standards" there are something that you might not be comfortable with.

As I have neither a mortgage or a family I cant say that that is a great consideration - As I regularly have to turn down offers of photographic work and still make a second income from photography I am happy to say that I am confident I could make it as a full time pro - I choose not too do so full time because as I said above I enjoy my day job - As to compliments on images I agree that many amateurs might have been complimented by freinds and family - however the compliments to which i refer come from celebrated pros such as rouse and macintryre - which is a slightly different level than great aunt flo.

Originally Posted by speckled wood

if I was a Professional Photographer I would doing what most Professional Photographers do which is to spend most of my time looking for and taking photographs that I knew would sell to photographic agencies

Which is what in my photographic business time I do - I sell images via several agencies , and directly to magazines , and publications , and to the press , and as prints to the public , and taking commisioneed work from design agencies and communications managers .

As this debate has nothing to do with the original question I would suggest again that we agree to disagree and let this thread return to the original topic of macro lenses !