Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 28-135 IS lens for MACRO?

Go to last post
B

Blaise06

Well-known member
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hi,

I plan to buy this lens for the Canon 10D. I was wondering how good it is at doing macros (flowers, insects).

If it's no good, any cheap recommendations?

Thanks!
 
Blaise06 said:
Hi,
I plan to buy this lens for the Canon 10D. I was wondering how good
it is at doing macros (flowers, insects).
If it's no good, any cheap recommendations?
Thanks!
Click to expand...
I used this lens to very good effect in the Italian Alps when we came across a flower meadow, and my "proper" macro lens wasn't with me. The IS helped enormously as it was just about to rain, and exposures were around 1/8 second. On Provia 100F I found it stood comparison with my EF 35 f2 which was my "fast" lens for the trip.
I think it gives about 1:4 in flower mode.

--
Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
 
The lens has closest focusing distance 0.45m - not really macro. But the lens works fine with extension tubes. But before starting read former threads about macro with extension tube.
I took this picture of a moth with the 28-135 and a 31 mm tube.


Blaise06 said:
Hi,

I plan to buy this lens for the Canon 10D. I was wondering how good
it is at doing macros (flowers, insects).

If it's no good, any cheap recommendations?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
The example I have online isn't as impressive, but still. This one was taken with a 36mm extension tube, but certainly not at the shortest possible distance:



The only drawback with extension tubes is loss of light. You should really use a tripod if you can. I didn't in this case, and it's not as sharp as I would like it to be.
--
Pieter
http://www.pbase.com/pgordebeke (supporter)
(equipment in profile)
 
Hi Melanie

Did you use any reflectors or other props when taking that photo?

Just wondering, because whenever I see your photos, I always think "Why don't my photos look as good as that!", especially seeing as I have 10D + 28-135 too.

I liked hiding behind the excuse of lousy, overcast British weather, but then I saw your lily you took when it was raining a couple of weeks ago.

Thanks

Dan.
Melanie Kipp said:
I took my Canon 28-135 IS lens on a nature walk, it does nicely for
close up work.
Ex:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/4240.html
--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

Click to expand...
--
'Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so' HHGTTG
http://www.pbase.com/dasantillo
 
Hi Dan... it was a rainy day ( but between rains ) when I took that photo. I did use a monopod. That's all. I think I have a magic camera! Post processing was levels, resize for web, USM and conversion to web color space. My camera's settings ( saturation, sharpening, etc ) are all set to "zero". I believe this photo was either ISO 100 or 200. I love the overcast lighting... flat light if you will.
Thank you Dan!
DanSan said:
Hi Melanie

Did you use any reflectors or other props when taking that photo?

Just wondering, because whenever I see your photos, I always think
"Why don't my photos look as good as that!", especially seeing as I
have 10D + 28-135 too.

I liked hiding behind the excuse of lousy, overcast British
weather, but then I saw your lily you took when it was raining a
couple of weeks ago.

Thanks

Dan.
Click to expand...
--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 
Blaise06 said:
Hi,

I plan to buy this lens for the Canon 10D. I was wondering how good
it is at doing macros (flowers, insects).
Click to expand...
I have only had this lens 3 days and was also interested in its macro work. I took this, handheld in very poor light conditions at 135mm, 1/8, f5.6, ISO 1600, manual focus, cloudy WB. I was surprised at how well it came out.



I am planning to get some extension tubes.

--
From beautiful Tasmania
http://www.netspace.net.au/~mikemartyn/
 
Very pretty picture Pieter. Nice colors.

Regarding macro performance, I am not too impressed by the enlargement of the fly - I have seen much closer close-ups online before. I guess it's pretty good, but not true macro performance.

Thanks for taking the time to answer and post your pic- very helpful!

Blaise
Pieter Gordebeke said:
The example I have online isn't as impressive, but still. This one
was taken with a 36mm extension tube, but certainly not at the
shortest possible distance:



The only drawback with extension tubes is loss of light. You should
really use a tripod if you can. I didn't in this case, and it's not
as sharp as I would like it to be.
--
Pieter
http://www.pbase.com/pgordebeke (supporter)
(equipment in profile)
Click to expand...
 
WOW! Really incredible stuff. You're an artist.

Did you use any other accessories than the 10d and 28-135?

Thanks!

Blaise
 
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