Going digital but what lens?

[JonSadler]

Hi

I am in the process of buying a Cannon 400D - body only as I have a 75-200 and a standard 55 lens from a former EOS (neither of them are great quality). My mind is on macro work and my question is:

Is it better to go for an F2.5 macro (Cannon, Sigma or Tamron) rather than one of the new F3.5 Tamron or Sigma zoom macros that have (to my inexperienced eyes at least) recently come onto the market? I have read through some of the threads but still cannot make a call.

I am an emtomologist but would quite like the flexibility to get some good bird pictures when I am out on site.

Regards
Jon

[matt_xyz]

Hi Jon,

I guess it comes down to budget. For macro work a dedicated macro lens is the way to go, the other 'zoom macros' that you mention are not true macro lenses. They are not capable of 1:1 reproduction and image quality will not generally be as good. That said, they do at least offer more reach and hence could be used for bird or other wildlife photography. But to an extent they are 'jack of all trade, master of none' lenses.

So, ideally you would buy a dedicated macro lens and a telephoto lens for birds/wildlife. In terms of macro lenses, the three most popular amongst WAB members seem to be the Canon 100mm, the Sigma 105mm and the Sigma 150mm. The Tamron 90mm is also a good lens. The longer the focal length of a macro lens, the greater the distance between the lens and the subject which is obviously helpful when it comes to skittish insects. So the Sigma 150 would be the best in that regard. The downside is that 150mm macro lenses are less easy to handhold and so are more dependent on a tripod.

Matt

[JonSadler]

Hi Matt

Finally went for a Sigma 180 F3.5 which I found on offer for 234+VAT. I followed up the Jura Nature Photography link and it certainly provides great photos. Thanks for the advice. The camera and lens arrive later this week.

Cheers
Jon

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by JonSadler

Hi Matt

Finally went for a Sigma 180 F3.5 which I found on offer for 234+VAT. I followed up the Jura Nature Photography link and it certainly provides great photos. Thanks for the advice. The camera and lens arrive later this week.

Cheers
Jon

Enjoy your new kit Jon and I look forward to seeing some of your results rom this combination.
Roger

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by JonSadler

Hi Matt

Finally went for a Sigma 180 F3.5 which I found on offer for 234+VAT. I followed up the Jura Nature Photography link and it certainly provides great photos. Thanks for the advice. The camera and lens arrive later this week.

Cheers
Jon

that's a very good price! I sometimes wonder if I should have gone for the 180mm. I hope you enjoy it.

Matt

[JonSadler]

Thanks Matt and Ollie,

I have the camera and lens and I am hoping for the rain to stop. I am not very mobile - torn achilles tendon - so I can not get out too far. The lens and camera are easy enough to point and shoot but I'll need some time to work through the various options.

The other thing that is very clear is that I am going to need a lightweight tripod to get some good shots with this lens. It is pretty heavy.

Regards
Jon

[GME]

Originally Posted by JonSadler

I am not very mobile - torn achilles tendon - so I can not get out too far.

Ouch!! That's gotta hurt

Have fun with your new toys

[kshotton45]

Hi Jon, I'm going to have my 'two penneth' !................. There's no such thing as a good, cheap, lightweight tripod !
If they're heavy and expensive, then they're probably good !
You've bought a cracking camera set up, so dig deep and treat your self.
Ask the guys on this site what they use ....................

Keith.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by kshotton45

Hi Jon, I'm going to have my 'two penneth' !................. There's no such thing as a good, cheap, lightweight tripod !
If they're heavy and expensive, then they're probably good !
You've bought a cracking camera set up, so dig deep and treat your self.
Ask the guys on this site what they use ....................

Keith.

It depends on what you mean by cheap - i use a manfrotoo 55DB (£79) and a 222 head (£39) - £118 all told which isnt too bad - the 55 is made of steel , the carbon fibre ones are a lot more - and you can forget the plastic and aluminium ones as they just aint sturdy.

look at brands like velbon , manfrotto and unilock.

and btw if you are doing a lot of low level work dont underestimate the useful ness of a bean bag - I use a pod (£19) which is a little round bean back with a screw for attaching it to you camera. this can also be used to support the camera on car roofs , fence posts, trees etc.

[kshotton45]

I agree with eeyore - keep away from the cheap and nasty ones.
You should expect to pay around £100 - £130 for a decent set up.
If you have to set up quickly to photograph insects, then a tripod may slow you down. The 'bean bag' described by eeyore is an essential item for this.
If you intend to use a tripod for low level work it helps if it can do this .................



I bought a Carbon Fibre Tripod because it was on offer with a head. I think Carbon Fiber is a bit of a gimmick. The 3 way tilt head is good, but very heavy, I would have liked a ball head.

I recently humped this lot around Slimbridge with a Sigma 175-500mm Lens ! With your Achilles tendon don't try it !!

Keith.