Reading mode: Light Dark

Lense buying advice please

Go to last post
P

Pocho

Active member
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Location
Miami, FL, US
Hi,

I know very little about lenses and am about to make my first serious purchase. I just got a Canon 400d, body only.

My thing is fine art photography. I mainly shoot macro for artwork and some telephoto of things like clouds. I also need better than 50mm wide angle for things like shooting interiors.

The other factor is money. I cannot afford $500 lenses, especially with little experience.

What should I buy?

So I figure I need a general purpose lens with a wide enough angle that I can get street shots and stuff. I was thinking of the Canon EF-S 18mm - 55mm or same Sigma. Then maybe later on like the Canon EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 for telephoto.

But I have no idea about macro where the quality/performance of the lens matters most. I get REALLY close, like microscopic and not always with the best setup or lighting.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

THanks

Frank
http://www.frankgarcia.com
 
That's quite a request - a cheap Macro lens, and provision for other uses as well.

Basically, there are no cheap Macro lenses. Some cheaper lenses will focus close, and may have to suffice on a limited budget.

If you're willing to wait and watch eBay, then the old Canon 50/2.5 Macro is good value.

Or look at a 'walkround' zoom that focusses close, like the Sigma 17-70.

The EF-S 60mm macro is good, but stretches your budget.

A compromise will probably give you a 'jack of all trades and master of none'. With fine art photography, that won't do!

There's a reason why no people replied in 11 hours - you're asking the impossible.

Forget the Canon 18-55, decide what your FIRST priority is: marco/walkround zoom/tele zoom, and let us know!

Stuart
--
- -

 
Ok That's great advice. thanks.

I guess my first priority is the Macro.

The second priority is the "wideish" angle walk-around. For that 17-70 sounds good

Can you tell me what you think is the most affordable macro lens that would be suitable for fine art images that will be enlarged as much as possible?

I normally take macro shots with full depth of field focus, preferring everything to be in razor sharp focus.
 
Pocho said:
Can you tell me what you think is the most affordable macro lens
that would be suitable for fine art images that will be enlarged as
much as possible?
Click to expand...
...but my preference is for the 60 / 2.8 macro since it is small, light, has USM (silent and fast focus), and has IF (the lens does not extend when focusing).

Quite honestly, even though the Sigma 50 / 2.8 macro will cost much less, I would still get the 60 / 2.8 macro because you'll find it a pleasure to use for non-macro purposes as well due to its handling. Plus, while all macro lenses are excellent, the 60 / 2.8 macro is even more excellent. : )

When you wish to add WA, I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 / 2.8, and when you wish to add telephoto, I'd add the 70-200 / 4L or 70-300 / 4-5.6 IS.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
well if u need to keep everything under $500, probably the best u can do is the tamron 17-50/2.8 and a canon 250d close-up lens to use with it for macro.
 
For someone who proclaims to know very little about lenses your galleries are absolutely stunning along with your website. What format camera were the gallery images shot with?
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
I wanted to make sure you understand that true macro is lifesize or 1 to 1 and that this is what you want. There are many lenses that are all purpose and will greatly magnify an image, but not to lifesize. Look at the "Weekly macro thread" on this forum and make sure this is what you want to do.

Also, if you're on a budget you could buy a "regular" multi-purpose zoom lens and use either extension tubes or close-up filters to get close to lifesize and not spend all of your money on a macro.

Kent
 
Thank you very much. believe it it or not most of those photos were taken with a consumer Sony F717 which broke two years ago. Since then I have been borrowing cameras or not shooting.

None of those images utilized professional lighting. Night time botanicals and such were shot against street lights or using one of two big home depot flash lights.

Some photoshop editing, mainly for RGB noise removal - my greatest frustration with digital.

The feedback I've gotten is that I have a good eye for seeing a good shot when it crosses my path. However I am not a professional photographer and actually do not know much about optics.

The Canon I just bought will be the first SLR that I own.

Thanks again for the compliment. I'm very flattered.
 
You said you want to photograph ‘fine art’, and for that you do NOT need a macro lens (unless you mean for the sharp images).

I have the Sigma 17-70, and I’ve been very pleased with this lens. It has a very nice focal length range for a walk-around lens, and the ‘macro’ part lets me get close-ups, down to about 1:2.3. This should be far closer than you need for ‘fine art’ photographs.

But now for the other side – I also have a Tamron 90/2.8 Macro, and the sharpness difference is really noticeable when cropping, so this would be a better choice for ‘big’ blow-ups, but pretty restricted for all-around use. If I had to pick a lens for ‘only’ taking pictures of fine art, I’d go for the Tamron.

Moral - get both!
--
BJCP National
 
Not only do you have a good eye but I would also add very creative. Does this come naturally or are you formally trained in other art disciplines?
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
is to use a 50mm 1.8 (very cheap) and a set of extenstion tubes (kenko, 170). This would give you a walk around and macro capability. The extension tubes will require a bit of work since they only focus within a very limited range, but if you can live with that you'll have a nice cheap walk around (albeit with maybe too tight a crop for many) with the 50, and the ability to take closeup shots when you use the extension tubes.

I thing you'd be better off with the 60 mm efs macro, but this solution is over $100 cheaper, and also offers the 1.8 aperture which can be a blessing in low light. I don't have the 60, but it gets rave reviews.

Do you have a tripod with a weight attached? This will greatly help the macro shots. If you're going to do a lot of studio shots look into using software that allows you to see the shots on a computer. I think Canon gives one with the camera.

-Bruce
 
joe mama said:
....
...but my preference is for the 60 / 2.8 macro since it is small,
light, has USM (silent and fast focus), and has IF (the lens does
not extend when focusing).
....
When you wish to add WA, I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 / 2.8, and
when you wish to add telephoto, I'd add the 70-200 / 4L or 70-300 /
4-5.6 IS.

--
--joe
Click to expand...
Joe speaks the truth here. Start with the EF-S 60mm macro.
It's a great macro for under $400. Get the Tamron 17-50 when
you are ready to spend on a zoom.
 
Canon 50 f/1.8 is a good and cheap alternatif. And I heard somewhere that reversing the lens, greater magnification ratios can be achieved.
 
Somebody wrote in this forum or another that this is a pain to easily use.
 
In your position I'd go for the following :-

Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 "kit" lens
Canon 50mm f1.8 lens
Set of Kenko (or similar quality) Extension Tubes
Off-camera flash (Canon cord 2 and 3rd party flashgun)

That should be possible under your budget, the 18-55 is quite a good performer when stopped down a little, and great value. The 50mm is also a good quality lens at a bargain basement price. Although I have a selection of 'better' lenses, I often take the kit lens with me as it's small, light and has a useful range.

The 50mm is similarly flexible, allowing low-light work, is a useful length for portraits, and has a wide enough aperture to throw backgrounds out of focus. And it will give a reasonable macro performance with a set of extension tubes.

When you've used this setup for a while you'll have (a) taken a lot of great photos, (b) learnt a lot about the capabilities of the camera and lighting and (c) know what you need to get as your next lens.

Here's a few galleries taken with the kit lens and 50mm (with tubes) :

http://www.pbase.com/cjed/kewglass

http://www.pbase.com/cjed/kitlenscu

http://www.pbase.com/cjed/extmacro

--
You want macros? We got 'em! Check out:
http://www.pbase.com/cjed
 
I've never attended art school though I've been creative my whole life. In retrospect I should have done so.

Thanks again.
 
OK, at this point I'm going to ask if anyone can refer to me to a good tutorial that will explain the whole macro thing to me.

For example, what's the difference between a macro and micro lense? does a 60 mm macro allow me to magnify the subject at the same distance as a 50mm, thus filling up more of the frame? Would a 90mm macro do this even more?

What's with the reversing the lense thing? Extension tubes?

I'm just not sure I understand the optics of a macro lense vs a regular 50mm and so on.

I could sure use a nice explanation in under 10 pages.

Thanks
 
One more question:

If I can use an extension tube on a 50mm lense and achieve macro shots, can I use an extension tube on other lenses such as an 18-55 or even a telephoto?
 
As an all-around lense that is affordable which of these two would you recommend? Or would you not reccomend either?

Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DG IF Macro Aspherical

Tamron Autofocus 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR Aspherical (IF)

THanks
 
Pocho said:
Hi,

I know very little about lenses and am about to make my first
serious purchase. I just got a Canon 400d, body only.

My thing is fine art photography. I mainly shoot macro for artwork
and some telephoto of things like clouds. I also need better than
50mm wide angle for things like shooting interiors.

The other factor is money. I cannot afford $500 lenses, especially
with little experience.

What should I buy?

So I figure I need a general purpose lens with a wide enough angle
that I can get street shots and stuff. I was thinking of the Canon
EF-S 18mm - 55mm or same Sigma. Then maybe later on like the Canon
EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 for telephoto.

But I have no idea about macro where the quality/performance of the
lens matters most. I get REALLY close, like microscopic and not
always with the best setup or lighting.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

THanks

Frank
http://www.frankgarcia.com
Click to expand...
for telephoto for your lower end budget, I would pick up the 70-200 F4L lens. It's selling for about $500-$650ish .
--
My mind has visions, and I want to share it so talkchite to me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top