Macro - Normal - Telephoto around £700

E

emdiesse

Messages
12
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I've a 550d and 18-135mm lens kit and I'm looking to really maximise what I am capable of achieving with a budget of ~£500 (revised to ~£700 by end of post :)).

To cut a long story short I want be able to accomplish 3 things:
1. Macro - For close up detailed wildlife shots
2. Telephoto - For getting that distant wildlife
3. Normal - Lightweight and reasonably priced for holidays, camping, city trips to tell a story and show what I have seen from a 'human perspective'

I like to buy as little rubbish as possible, and much prefer the buy once cry once philosophy but when the decision on photography equipment cost can range from cheap budget to mega money coupled with my limited knowledge I guess it's better to admit that:
a) My money is limited
b) My knowledge is limited

If money was no objective I'm sure I'd pop out and buy
1. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
2. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM or Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM & Canon 1.4x Teleconverter
3. Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM

BUT... I'd still have to admit, my knowledge is limited and my decisions are purely based on things I have read rather than experience:
1. I notice the macro lenses of choice for full frame seem to be 100mm so naturally a 60mm macro lens for my crop sensor would give me an equivalent 96mm
2. I want more 'zoom' for wildlife that always sees me before I see it or is always many meters away or both! Most the time I'd probably be at 300mm like I am at 135mm on my lens so Prime could be better for the lower f number... and then a 1.4 teleconverter would be an excellent way of added yet more 'zoom' to get those tree-top, in-flight, distant birds
3. I like the idea of a normal lens, something to show what I have seen from a somewhat human-perspective. Something smaller and lighter than I can carry around cities, on holidays, camping, walking, bike rides, etc

But to get experience I need to get out there and gain experience but to do that I need kit to experience it with! So then thinking in terms on my budget and realising that there is no way I am going to be able to buy once, cry once on this one I have come up with this:

1. Polaroid Extension Tubes (£60)
2. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (~300)
3. Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM (or maybe this Sigma I hear a lot about Sigma 30mm F/1.4 EX DC HSM) (~300)

So it's £160 quid over the original budget but it's one step towards accomplishing the things I want to accomplish.

1. So it's perhaps a little cruder than a dedicated macro lens but maybe I'll learn more about focal lengths, f-stops, etc this way
2. So, I hear (and have seen photos demonstrating) the non L is not as sharp as the L but I guess for under a quarter of the price I should expect that. I'm sure for £300 I can at least get priceless experience out of it that may in turn save me easily a grand if I made the wrong decision on an L lens. Only experience and personal preference will tell I guess.
3. I'm looking for something light, cheap where I am happy to use my legs to zoom just so I can capture 'my story' of course I want the photo's to be pretty, but composition and so on weigh far more in on this that image quality for 'holiday' snaps so I personally have no need to spend any more to change this small factor of 'my story'.

I could, save that £660 quid and put it towards an expensive ever lasting piece of L glass... but I'd be a fool to admit I know what I am talking about and perhaps this £660 investment to get myself out in the field learning the basics of all these things is the better option.

So there we go... For around £700 quid and keeping in mind the things I want to dabble in
Wildlife photography from macro to telephoto mainly (plus a lightweight, normal lens for some story telling on camping, city and holiday trips)

Thoughts from those who know how? :)

Cheers,
Matt
 
If it was me, knowing what I know now, although this is just me of course.

1. Keep the 18-135 lens as your "normal lens", although I don't know how bulky it is. These kit lenses are better than many give them credit for IMHO.

2. Get a Raynox DC250 and a flash for macro.

3. Blow the rest on the best value, used telephoto you can find.

Just one view. I'm sure others will think differently.
 
That's very true, I don't know what I was thinking. I guess the 18-135mm is my perfect travel companion! Ilike the lens I've just been fascinated by the idea of the fixed normal. Well, that's £300 quid saved towards a telephoto :)

I have never seen a raynox, looks interesting and I guess I had omitted the flash entirely. I can imagine it's quite important in macro photography.

The telephoto is the hardest one. I'm keen on photographing all sorts of wildlife but the question is do I look out for a 70-300mm L or 100-400mm L or a 300/400mm prime and a 1.4 teleconverter. These are the thoughts I had when trying to keep in line witht he Buy Once, Cry Once philosophy.... but I notice the 300mm/400mm primes don't have any IS unless you spend mega mega bucks. Yet is I were to get a 70-300mm IS or 100-400mm L lens it has IS.... Is there a reason why it's not on the 3/400mm Primes, surely they are easier to add Is to that a complicated zoom lens?
 
Yeah :( Sorry :( I know. It is one of those threads. Doh :(

I guess I am not looking for answers more than I am looking for opinions.
The way you did it?
The way you wished you did it?
The way you plan to do it?
The way you currently do it?

Cheers however :)

Sorry, it's definitely one of those answerless threads, but it'd be great to see responses holding opinions more than answers. I don't know, I find it helpful as much as the opinions on other threads I have read on the 3 subjects so far.

I suppose I'm not looking to collate those with other opinions related directly to my own desires.
 
On a tightish budget, I would go for a selection of 3rd party lenses, 2nd hand:-

Macro, a Tamron 90mm or a Sigma 105mm both f/2.8 or possibly a set of extension tubes coupled with...
Standard, Sigma or Tamron 24-70, again, f/2.8
Tele, Sigma or Tamron 70-200, again f/2.8.
If 200 isn't long enough, a 1.4x teleconverter will stretch it out and still be reasonably fast in terms of max aperture and even a 2x will be f/5.6, on a par with most manufacturers' own brand 70-300 lenses. Extra mm are no real substitute for improved stalking/fieldcraft but the mm are quicker and easier to buy!

As always with 3rd party lenses, try the actual lens you'll be buying before paying for it - QC issues have been reported and some people have even experienced them in person.
 
Nod said:
On a tightish budget, I would go for a selection of 3rd party lenses, 2nd hand:-

Macro, a Tamron 90mm or a Sigma 105mm both f/2.8 or possibly a set of extension tubes coupled with...
Standard, Sigma or Tamron 24-70, again, f/2.8
Tele, Sigma or Tamron 70-200, again f/2.8.
If 200 isn't long enough, a 1.4x teleconverter will stretch it out and still be reasonably fast in terms of max aperture and even a 2x will be f/5.6, on a par with most manufacturers' own brand 70-300 lenses. Extra mm are no real substitute for improved stalking/fieldcraft but the mm are quicker and easier to buy!

As always with 3rd party lenses, try the actual lens you'll be buying before paying for it - QC issues have been reported and some people have even experienced them in person.
Click to expand...

Yeah, field craft is definitely something I am into improving so that's a good reason why I haven't bought anything yet except recently a book by Andy Rouse on 'Photographing Animals in the Wild' :) It's a great book, yet to finish though.

I can't help but feel that the majority of cracking shots I see have been shot at high mm's *sigh*. Those little birds and so on always seem to be at the far end of my 'little' 135mm when I am only even a measly 5-10 metres away and they scarper at the slightest movement I make in their general direction.

Thanks for the help, and the 3rd party lens recommendations. I had noticed a lot of people talking about 70-200mm yet had wondered that 200mm doesn't seem much more than my 135mm. I hadn't noticed the compatibility with teleconverters on these lenses or canons own 70-200mm either. They seem a nice combo 3rd party and canons own, pretty cool.

I figure for now, there's plenty of other things I should be spending money on rather than camera equipment. I suppose it's back to field craft with a dose of luck in regards to the telephoto side!

For macro, well I have the extension tubes or the close up lenses which I do not yet know the pros and cons of each but I'm pretty sure that's another frequently asked question so I'm sure it's about somewhere.

The 'normal'/travel lens.... How could I ignore my 18-135mm as being the perfect candidate and some!

Cheers
 
I'd say that for wildlife macro then you'll be far better off with a lens around the 100mm mark. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 60mm macro - cracking lens - but you may well find your working distance will scare your subject off when using the 60mm.

I think you need to think about keeping your current lens as your 'walkabout' lens, then decide where your main interest lies. When you refer to macro wildlife, are you thinking of detailed shots of a fly's eye, or a full length dragonfly shot? There's a big difference in the gear required for those 2 shots

You can get 2 decent 2nd hand lenses within budget, something like a tamron 90mm or sigma 105mm macro combined with a sigma 120-400mm or similar if you're prepared to do a little searching. All good lenses if not the best.

Personally, I'd be tempted to look for a canon 100-400mm 2nd hand, which is possibly available 2nd hand for £700 if you search enough. Excellent image quality, great reach, and able to focus close enough for the full length dragonfly type shot.

Also, the sigma 150-500mm lens has comparable specs as the canon zoom, and can be found for £700 new
 
I have the Tamron 90mm Macro for Canon and it is very very good and exceptional Value for money imho. Autofocus is a bit pants but macro i am always manual/fixed focus so no dramas. Optically very very good.

Also have the 70-300IS (non 'L') and have always been very please with it! It is weaker at 300 than 70-200 range but still very very good value to get you started. Get second hand and it will retain its value too!
 
emdiesse said:
but I notice the 300mm/400mm primes don't have any IS unless you spend mega mega bucks. Yet is I were to get a 70-300mm IS or 100-400mm L lens it has IS.... Is there a reason why it's not on the 3/400mm Primes, surely they are easier to add Is to that a complicated zoom lens?
Click to expand...
Probably just the age of the design. The 400L was introduced in 1993. The first Canon IS lens (a 75-300) was introduced in 1995.

Is there a current Canon 300 prime without IS?
 
You can get a Sigma 150-500mm for £560 from Panamoz if you pay by bank transfer.
Ordered mine on the 20th December and it turned up on Christmas Eve :)
I love it but it is heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top