What am i going to gain or lose here

L

Lukeeee1990

Messages
821
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, just getting into my 17-70mm Macro lens i bought off someone here, and it's doing what i want to (see thread)

however, what is going to be the difference in using this macro lens, my 18-55mm, and 55-200mm lens for shooting scenery

i.e. which one would be best and why? the macro seems to take relatively good shots from a distance?
 
Nawty said:
Macro doesn't just mean that it can ONLY take close up shots, it just means that it can.
Click to expand...

I realise that, but is the only difference between my 17-70mm macro and 18-55mm standard lens that one can do macro and zoom more then?
 
Pretty much yes, not sure what lens your 17-70 is but I suspect it is also slightly faster wide open too (i.e. lower f number).
 
And very nice macro shots you've been taking with it too, Luke :D

.. fancy meeting you here..
 
Nawty said:
Pretty much yes, not sure what lens your 17-70 is but I suspect it is also slightly faster wide open too (i.e. lower f number).
Click to expand...

I reckon so, the box says F2.8-4.5, my other lens is...doesn't say lol...what does the F number mean?
 
Nawty said:
There are probably better / more practical guides out there but it is crucial to learn.
Click to expand...

I gathered :( i sort of think i get aperture...i just keep the f number really low to keep the exposure good enabling me to raise the shutter speed but keep the ISO down...sound about right?
 
Close enough :D

You also get the smaller depth of field (i.e. blurry background) with a low f-number.
 
The 17-70 will work better in low light conditions and probably be sharper than the 18-55 kit lens, its obviously more versatile as it has more focal lengths covered.

In all honesty 18-55 kit lenses have always had a habit of living in my bag and rarely made it onto the camera.
 
iancandler said:
The 17-70 will work better in low light conditions and probably be sharper than the 18-55 kit lens, its obviously more versatile as it has more focal lengths covered.

In all honesty 18-55 kit lenses have always had a habit of living in my bag and rarely made it onto the camera.
Click to expand...

Right, now I'm thinking of just leaving it at home as I would rather take my 55-200mm out with the macro, as it has a greater focal length...but have no space for the 18-55mm, could you/anyone think of an occasion this would be MORE useful?

Nawty said:
Aye.
Click to expand...

yipee :D
 
it may say macro on the lens but its nowhere near macro , manufactures are very misleading sometimes - a true macro lens will give you 1:1 magnification , if you take a picture of a ruler at 1:1 you will see 26.7mm across the image.

The image below is 1:1 on a Canon 50D which has a sensor size of 22.3mm

1:1 -
1-1.jpg



your sigma will give 1:2.3 which is less that 1/2 life size the image below is 1:2 with a 50D

1:2 -
1-2.jpg



your 17-55mm will give 1:3

your 55-200mm will give 1:4.5
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
it may say macro on the lens but its nowhere near macro , manufactures are very misleading sometimes - a true macro lens will give you 1:1 magnification , if you take a picture of a ruler at 1:1 you will see 26.7mm across the image.

The image below is 1:1 on a Canon 50D which has a sensor size of 22.3mm

1:1 -
1-1.jpg



your sigma will give 1:2.3 which is less that 1/2 life size the image below is 1:2 with a 50D

1:2 -
1-2.jpg



your 17-55mm will give 1:3

your 55-200mm will give 1:4.5
Click to expand...

Great reply, thankyou!

The first picture, how close is the ruler to the lens?

And how do i know what size the sensor is on my lens, or is it 17-70mm?

...Just when i thought i had it sussed :thinking:
 
Lukeeee1990 said:
Great reply, thankyou!

The first picture, how close is the ruler to the lens?

And how do i know what size the sensor is on my lens, or is it 17-70mm?

...Just when i thought i had it sussed :thinking:
Click to expand...

your sensor is 23.7m x 15.5mm ,

maximum magnification is at the lens minimum focus distance
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Yes -Sigma 105mm Macro , 150mm macro and 180mm macro, Tamron 90mm, Nikon 105mm VR are all true macro 1:1 - notice that they are all prime lens not zoom.
Click to expand...

Ahh, i did have my heart set on the 105 but now i see why it was more.....prime lens meaning they have no zooming capabilities?
 
Just to add to whats already been said, your 17-70 basically makes your 18-55 redundant. The kit lens offers nothing the 17-70 can't do.
 
Luke the Sigma 17-70mm is much sharper than the kit lens, has a bit more focal length range and is a 'faster' lens. (Aperture opens wider - f/2.8 instead of f/3.5)

When you get the extension tubes (hopefully today) they will enable you to do the 1:1 macro that Dogfish_magnet is talking about above. This gives you a similar look to what you would get with a 'true' macro lens without the extra expense.

If I was you I'd forget about using the 18-55mm kit lens and just use the 17-70mm, either put the kit lens away or sell it on if you need the money. ;)
 
Mark.A said:
Luke the Sigma 17-70mm is much sharper than the kit lens, has a bit more focal length range and is a 'faster' lens. (Aperture opens wider - f/2.8 instead of f/3.5)

When you get the extension tubes (hopefully today) they will enable you to do the 1:1 macro that Dogfish_magnet is talking about above. This gives you a similar look to what you would get with a 'true' macro lens without the extra expense.

If I was you I'd forget about using the 18-55mm kit lens and just use the 17-70mm, either put the kit lens away or sell it on if you need the money. ;)
Click to expand...

Ahh ok chrz mate, won't sell on just yet as it's actually my dad's, and realistically what can I expect to fetch for a kit 18-55mm lens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top