View Full Version : NEW, MACRO for 350d help please.
hi
i mentioned to the wife that i would like a wide angle lens, she said 'ok get one ':D , but i said it may cost £500, she said ' ok get one ' :D
i have had a look at Matts lens links and a couple of the wide angle lens dont sound too good, Canon EF 2.8 USM had wobbly pieces in the test, and the Canon EF2.8 IS USM L has very strong barrel distortion at 16mm.
What about other brands, i dont know what is compatible with mine, any help would be appreciated.
Boon, I have the same camera and I use the Sigma 10-20mm and have no problems with it.
Have a look at these
http://www.pbase.com/davey_uk/image/58028458
http://www.pbase.com/davey_uk/image/58069047
http://www.pbase.com/davey_uk/image/59388760
Hope it helps
Warspite
04-07-2006, 12:48
Another backer for the Sigma here, although depends on your motives, do you specifically want a prime for its large aperture.
thanks guys, nice photo's. Is this the f/2.8 or what?
with the 2.8 being equilvalent to f/3.5 is it worth me getting something like, say f/1.8
as you can probably guess, i am not confident with what differences mm and F numbers are.
Are the sigma EF lenses?
Warspite
04-07-2006, 13:54
The Sigma is an EF lens in its Canon format, but is designed for croppoed sensors, so will fit any Canon but works best with the 1.6x cropped sensors found in the 300D, 350D, 20D, & 30D. Its a f4 to f5.6 aperture.
The Sigma 12-24mm f4.5 - 5.6.
Theres also the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5 - 4.5, costs around £474.98 from here : Linky (http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod27.html)
Theres also the Tokina 12-24mm f4.
Personally chose the Sigma 10-20 because:
1. Its very wide (which was the whole point)
2. Good reviews and results from other users (see some posts by Petemc here (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3360) )
3. Price - good lens, but a good deal cheaper then most of the alternatives.
4. Build quality.
thanks guys, i am not in a rush, so i'll look around a bit longer.
Well 500 sobs puts you in the ball park for a Canon 17-40L Steve. There's no problem with future compatibility should you upgrade your body, and at f4 throughout the zoom range it's not slow unless you're particularly looking for a faster lens? It's not particularly wide on a 1.6X crop body - 27mm equivalent on your 350D, but it's a known crisp performer with lovely colour rendition, and one of the relatively few weather sealed Canon lenses. It'll keep it's value too should you want to sell it later. :)
The f number is derived by dividing the physical width of the lens at full aperture into the focal length. A 50 mm standard lens having a max aperture measuring 50mm would be an f1 lens!! Canon did once used to make such an animal - at a price. :grin:
hi CT
what would i gain buying the Canon 17-40L over the 17-85 EFS-IS USM i already have, i know the L means a lot, but would it be any wider?
No m8, they are both 17mm at their widest.
hi CT
what would i gain buying the Canon 17-40L over the 17-85 EFS-IS USM i already have, i know the L means a lot, but would it be any wider?
No it's no wider Steve. I didn't realise you had that lens mate. Well you'd gain compatibilty with 1 series cameras but lose IS. The only reason I parted with my 17-85 was that it wouldn't fit the 1D so probably not the best idea for you then. :)
whitewash
04-07-2006, 21:05
hi
i mentioned to the wife that i would like a wide angle lens, she said 'ok get one ':D , but i said it may cost £500, she said ' ok get one ' :D
does rohypronol have commonplace usage in your household, that does not sound like the actions of a compus-mentis wife.....:nuts:
does rohypronol have commonplace usage in your household, that does not sound like the actions of a compus-mentis wife.....:nuts:
i take it rohypronol must be some kind of drug, but no, my wife is completely sane and very understanding, :grin: if i told her the guys on this forum recomended a lens to me at a cost of whatever, she would say ' buy it ', but at the end of the day, we both put money in the pot.
so ok then guys, do i look for a f/2.8 sort of thing, or do i look for mm sort of thing:thinking:
Wide is measured in mm, speed is measured in f's.
so a 10mm lens is wider than a 17mm lens, the F's of both has nothing to do with the price of cheese or their wideness either.
Just wondering why you want something wider than 17mm Boon? Specific need?
minimeeze
06-07-2006, 12:44
I have recently bought the Sigma 10-20mm for my Nikon D70, and am really pleased with it. You just have to be careful not to get your feet in the shot ;)
Have a look on the Bristol Cameras website - their service is fantastic and prices are very competitive.
Another vote for the sigma here. Only drawback is it's not suitable for full frame cameras, so if you upgrade at anytime you'll possibly have to sell it, as CT mentions above.
Canon do make a 10-22mm Ef-s but you'll have the same problem with the upgrade path and it's a 100 quid dearer.
Personaly, I'd get the sigma and just accept the fact that it'll have to go if you go full frame.
Just wondering why you want something wider than 17mm Boon? Specific need?
no specific need at all dod, in fact, after my trip to Skipton today, i really dont think i need anything wider than 17mm, so i have decided to go down the macro route, now tell me a good macro to get.
Well, I want to add the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro to my equipment and I have heard a lot of people say it is a great lens so...
lumpster
06-07-2006, 20:32
Well i want the canon 100mm macro as well. :naughty: it has great reviews. But i think i am going to go for the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro. Mainly for budget reasons.
But i think i am going to go for the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro. Mainly for budget reasons.
i have just been looking at that lens lumpy, it looks quite good, wonder how it compares to the canon though:thinking:
Wide is measured in mm, speed is measured in f's.
so a 10mm lens is wider than a 17mm lens, the F's of both has nothing to do with the price of cheese or their wideness either.
thank you sammy, now i know, and there's no F in cheese either:razz: :D
I have the Sigma 150 mm macro as does pxl8 (though I'm not sure my results compare to his :) ) . You can search the forums to see what it can do macro wise.
Got to say though I am also impressed with its abilities as a 150mm f2.8 prime. Not really had much application for it yet but i did point it at some sparrows on holiday recently and thought they came out well :)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robertmpeacock/talkp/sparrow1.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robertmpeacock/talkp/sparrow2.jpg
thanks robert, i have seen busterboy and sean Mcr rave about prime lenses, i am not sure i would know what the difference is, but these pictures look good to me.
does the prime have any advantages??
Get the Nikon 105mm f2.8 Vr If Ed alphabet soup lens.
oh, sorry, you need canon don't you!
Sigma 150mm then. I've not heard or seen a bad thing about it!
does the prime have any advantages??
Sharpness has to be the main one. They are generally larger apertures (lower f stop number ;) ) too so are better in lower light.
Some say the restrictions it places on you to frame the shot well is an advantage too - forcing you to think more about the shot.
Sigma 150mm then. I've not heard or seen a bad thing about it!
Me neither. I've got the canon 100mm but I was considering trading it for the sigma last year but never got round to it due to other priorities. It really does look like real quality and after the experience I've had with the 70-200 I would be pretty confident about it :)
mfwild13
06-07-2006, 21:45
Sigma 150mm Macro is definately my next lens purchase (unless the 500mm F4 suddenly drops in price hugely :D ).
Not sure what other lenses you have but for £500'ish you could go the other way and even buy a BIGMA ;)
thanks robert, i have seen busterboy and sean Mcr rave about prime lenses, i am not sure i would know what the difference is, but these pictures look good to me.
does the prime have any advantages??
I'm going to stick my neck out here and assume you're asking what does prime mean. I appologise in advance if you already know and you think I'm being condescending! :)
A prime lens is one that has a fixed focal length (x mm). So the opposite of a zoom lens, there is no twiddly bit that lets you get closer further away you have to use your legs!
The main advantage is that it can be optimised for that fixed focal length so should be sharper than an equivalent zoom, and also because it doesn't need to contain lots of zoom gubbins internally it usually can support a much wider apperture i.e. smaller f number.
Sorry again if that's stating the bleedin' obvious. :)
Oh, and what about extension tubes instead of a dedicated macro lens? Should work out cheaper.
thanks for that sammy, nicely put, and you assumed rightly too:D
Now that poses another problem, if one gets a prime lens, and you have to walk backwards /forwards to get something into focus, as the DOF is shallow, what would be the prime(sorry about the pun) use of such a lens, because surely you must be limited with it.
many thanks for the help.
It focuses just like the lens you are used to for 'normal' shots. You can manual focus or use autofocus. The walking about gets you the effect you are used to by zooming with a zoom lens - changing how much of the scene is in the frame.
With macro the focus is quite critical and any movement can get you re-focusing. Autofocus will usually go off hunting for focus when all you really wanted was a small adjustment. Repeat that 10 times in a minute and you spend a lot of time looking at a blur and getting annoyed. Thats why you normally use manual focus for macro shots - you correct the focus yourself either by turning the focus ring a tiny bit or moving a little nearer/away from the subject.
Oh and used as a standard lens the DOF is the same as any lens you are used to. Close up at macro distances is where the DOF get shallow - hence the careful focusing
silkstone
07-07-2006, 18:57
A Sigma 150mm macro arrived here from Onestop Digital on Monday, and so far I can't fault it except that it weighs a bit. :)
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/silkstone/photos/mac40.jpg
Nobody in the UK had one in stock, but it only took 4 days to arrive from Hong Kong (ordered on Thursday) and at £343 it was about £70 cheaper than over here. ;)
A Sigma 150mm macro arrived here from Onestop Digital on Monday, and so far I can't fault it except that it weighs a bit. :)
Nobody in the UK had one in stock, but it only took 4 days to arrive from Hong Kong (ordered on Thursday) and at £343 it was about £70 cheaper than over here. ;)
hi silkstone
does this include VAT, p+p and customs stuff, dont want any nasty suprises.
silkstone
07-07-2006, 19:12
There was no VAT or duty to pay, and they guarantee to refund it if you do get charged. (Their website has a form to fill in for a refund if necessary.)
So no unpleasant surprises, and very good service. :)
i think i will have to ponder a while on this, not sure what i REALLY want, i have also been thinking about a 70-300 zoom too, for birds etc, so i am going to give myself some time out, and get it right.
and thanks for all the help everyone.
Not a bad idea :)
I prefer to buy used on the basis that I can sell it again for more or less what I paid for it. The plan doesn't quite work as I have only ever got round to selling one lens so far :lol:
What do you want to do the most?
When you've decided that then the choice of lens becomes far more simple.
If you want to spend more time shooting birds/nature etc then get a decent zoom lens
If you want close ups of flowers and creepy crawlies then get a macro lens.
silkstone
09-07-2006, 22:17
^^^^ Agreed, but birds are never close enough, so a long prime may be better. And you'll want a zoom too for other things (I like the Canon 70-300 IS), plus a macro lens for the bugs and flowers.....
..... Oh, and a macro ring-light is a good idea too. :D
i think i will have to ponder a while on this, not sure what i REALLY want, i have also been thinking about a 70-300 zoom too, for birds etc, so i am going to give myself some time out, and get it right.
and thanks for all the help everyone.
Don't take this the wrong way mate but I really think you need to do some reading around to get a proper understanding of what all those numbers actually mean. Arkady posted (ages ago) a whole list of links to short articles that explained these concepts in the Links forum.
:)
minimeeze
10-07-2006, 19:37
Or you could always opt for the SIGMA (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/70-300mmAPO.htm) 70-300mm with macro facility ;) Just to confuse you even more....
It all depends on how much quality you require really.
I had that lens until I sold it to someone from TPF ad replaced it with my current 70-300.
My own personal preference is to have a dedicated macro lens for macro work and use my zoom for what it was intended. The sigma is a great budget lens, don't get me wrong - but you will most certainly notice the difference in quality between a better (imo) zoom lens and a dedicated macro lens.
Edit: Also the 95cm closest focussing distance on the sigma is huge and I found it difficult to work with. As an example, I believe the canon 100mm macro has a working distance of 31cm - a third of the distance.
Yeah, to be honest, calling the Sigma 70-300 a macro lens is a bit cheeky of Sigma. :)
Edit: Also the 95cm closest focussing distance on the sigma is huge and I found it difficult to work with. As an example, I believe the canon 100mm macro has a working distance of 31cm - a third of the distance.
A longer working distance is more actually desirable. What matters more is the magnification factor i.e. 1:1 life size.
The Canon 100mm and 180mm L Macro lenses both have 1:1 macro magnification but the 180mm offers it at a much further working distance.
These Sigma 'Macro' zooms are not true macro lenses and so can't really be compared with proper ones :)
The Tamron 90mm macro scores well against the Canon 100mm and is a bit cheaper. I got one about a month ago and it really opens up a whole new world as well as being a decent portrait lens.
The Sigma macro zooms aren't that bad but nowhere near what you'd get from a true 1:1 lens.
As for 300mm zoom I quite like using mine to get shots of my kids when they're playing. It's pretty impossible to get natural shots when you're in their faces and plus I can sit on a deckchair and have a bit of peace some distance away :)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.